Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

A big NO to 9/11 RespondersFollow

#1 Dec 10 2010 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
I'll say one thing, it is fiscally conservative at least!
Quote:
9/11 responders bill defeated by Senate GOP filibuster

Washington (CNN) -- Senate Democrats failed Thursday to win a procedural vote to open debate on a bill that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The motion for cloture, or to begin debate, needed 60 votes to pass due to a Republican filibuster, but fell short at 57-42 in favor.

While supporters said they would try to bring the bill up again, either on its own or as part of other legislation to be considered, the vote Thursday jeopardized the measure's chances for approval in the final weeks of the current congressional session.

The House previously passed the bill on a mostly partisan 268-160 vote.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reacted to Thursday's result by calling it "a tragic example of partisan politics trumping patriotism."
House passes 9/11 first responders bill

"I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their wrong-headed political strategy and allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote," Bloomberg said in a statement.

Republicans complained that the $7.4 billion price tag was too high, while Democrats said the government had an obligation to help the first responders to the deadliest terrorism attack in U.S. history.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health Bill -- named after a deceased New York Police Department detective who had worked in the toxic plume at ground zero -- seeks to provide free medical coverage for responders and survivors who were exposed to toxins after the attacks.


For once the comments section of CNN had something useful, when someone linked the bill showing that there were no miscellaneous activities, people, or projects being funding: it was directly to the emergency personnel who responded to the attacks and were hurt by it.

Edit: Also, fun to note that while the NYtimes also displays this prominently in their politics section, Fox news has only links to it to outside sources (Wsj.com and politics daily). They DO have an article on it, but you can't find it on their politics page directly - I needed to Google search for it. As one of the comments said: "It is interesting to note that there are less than 100 comments on this but nearly 3500 comments on the story of parents pulling a child out of school over an assigned book."

Edited, Dec 10th 2010 11:46am by LockeColeMA
#2 Dec 10 2010 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
They filibustered the 9/11 bill. jeez
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#3 Dec 10 2010 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
This came up here before. Any 'workers' responding to the 911 incident are covered by workers comp.

Employers are required to pay a lot of money to insure their employees via workers comp.

The governments place in all this is to insure workers comp is providing the care, services and compensation for any injuries that might have occurred to people working at the 9/11 site.

I love the language about the toxic plumes though. There were no plumes - the material hazards were dust borne.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Dec 10 2010 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I'm sure there are more important things to fund. Like paying the contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to install fiber optics networks so our soldiers can get to their Facebook and MySpace pages that much quicker.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Dec 10 2010 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Elinda wrote:
Any 'workers' responding to the 911 incident are covered by workers comp.
I don't see an issue then, personally.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#6 Dec 10 2010 at 11:09 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Elinda wrote:
This came up here before. Any 'workers' responding to the 911 incident are covered by workers comp.

Employers are required to pay a lot of money to insure their employees via workers comp.

The governments place in all this is to insure workers comp is providing the care, services and compensation for any injuries that might have occurred to people working at the 9/11 site.

I love the language about the toxic plumes though. There were no plumes - the material hazards were dust borne.


According to USworkerscomp.com, the bill was to reopen the original federal fund to families dealing with illness and injury from 9/11 that ran out in 2003, and to cover the expenses of responders who are not covered (or not covered completely) under the worker's comp settlement. It also would apply to those who agreed to the worker's comp settlement, so people sitting on the fence unsure that the settlement would adequately provide for their illnesses, can still agree to the settlement but be covered if the bill went through.

Edited, Dec 10th 2010 12:10pm by LockeColeMA
#7 Dec 10 2010 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
This came up here before. Any 'workers' responding to the 911 incident are covered by workers comp.

Employers are required to pay a lot of money to insure their employees via workers comp.

Ironically, last time it was Locke saying "Why should we cover these guys?" and Elinda saying we had an obligation to do so.

Then Gbaji came in and sprayed his usual stupid-stink all over the thread.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Dec 10 2010 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
This came up here before. Any 'workers' responding to the 911 incident are covered by workers comp.

Employers are required to pay a lot of money to insure their employees via workers comp.

Ironically, last time it was Locke saying "Why should we cover these guys?" and Elinda saying we had an obligation to do so.

Then Gbaji came in and sprayed his usual stupid-stink all over the thread.


Yeah, I remember that Smiley: lol I still don't endorse it - I just note the fact that the GOP is solidly against it and the Dems are for it. As said, not passing it is fiscally responsible.
#9 Dec 10 2010 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
9/11 changed EVERYTHING!!!


Except Republicans when it comes to choosing businesses over sick people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Dec 10 2010 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
As said, not passing it is fiscally responsible.

Well, it was to be paid for by closing a tax loophole. So it was "fiscally responsible" from the start. The GOP just didn't want to see the loophole closed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Dec 10 2010 at 5:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
As said, not passing it is fiscally responsible.

Well, it was to be paid for by closing a tax loophole. So it was "fiscally responsible" from the start. The GOP just didn't want to see the loophole closed.


Raising taxes is not synonymous with fiscal responsibility. And we could equally say that the Dems wanted said tax code change and deliberately chose this issue and this bill to attempt to ram it through. So it's more than unfair to attack the GOP for playing "partisan politics" when the Dems chose to make the bill partisan in the first place.


The Dems managed to spend 800 billion on a stimulus, add several hundred billion more into various energy and green jobs bills, and god knows how many more hundreds of billions in health care reform without needing to change one line of tax code. Any argument that there's just no way to pay for this one bit of spending without that exact specific change is absolute total BS.

Edited, Dec 10th 2010 3:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Dec 10 2010 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Raising taxes is not blah blah blah same stupid shit I said in the other thread and I sounded like a meth-addled monkey then, too.


That's nice.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Dec 10 2010 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
As said, not passing it is fiscally responsible.

Well, it was to be paid for by closing a tax loophole. So it was "fiscally responsible" from the start. The GOP just didn't want to see the loophole closed.


Raising taxes is not synonymous with fiscal responsibility. And we could equally say that the Dems wanted said tax code change and deliberately chose this issue and this bill to attempt to ram it through. So it's more than unfair to attack the GOP for playing "partisan politics" when the Dems chose to make the bill partisan in the first place.


The Dems managed to spend 800 billion on a stimulus, add several hundred billion more into various energy and green jobs bills, and god knows how many more hundreds of billions in health care reform without needing to change one line of tax code. Any argument that there's just no way to pay for this one bit of spending without that exact specific change is absolute total BS.

Edited, Dec 10th 2010 3:04pm by gbaji


So... are you against this bill?
#14 Dec 10 2010 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
So... are you against this bill?


I'm against holding the health needs of 9/11 first responders hostage to a targeted tax agenda. I'm definitely against people lying to the public by claiming that they can't pass the bill without said tax changes contained within, when they managed to find a trillion and a half dollars or so for all the other stuff they did in the last 2 years without having to do so.


But of course, you completely ignored me when I said it the last time even though you quoted it. This is *not* about the 9/11 first responders at all. If it was just about them, we'd find ways to pay for their care just as we have for so many other expenses. This bill is about making a specific tax law change. The 9/11 first responders health care is being used as a baseball bat to try to get that tax change passed.


So no. I do not support the bill.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Dec 10 2010 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
*
53 posts
Jophiel wrote:
9/11 changed EVERYTHING!!!


Except Republicans when it comes to choosing businesses over sick people.


Like the 100+ waivers given by the Democratic Obama administration to Obamacare?
#16 Dec 10 2010 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
SuperAtheist wrote:
Like the 100+ waivers given by the Democratic Obama administration to Obamacare?

They changed 9/11?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Dec 11 2010 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
For fuck's sake. Not this shit again.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#18 Dec 22 2010 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Credit to Jon Stewart for taking the media to task on ignoring this bill (and the GOP filibuster) and turning up the heat on getting it passed. The bill passed the Senate with unanimous consent this afternoon and should be swiftly approved by the House before they adjourn.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Dec 22 2010 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Credit to Jon Stewart for taking the media to task on ignoring this bill (and the GOP filibuster) and turning up the heat on getting it passed. The bill passed the Senate with unanimous consent this afternoon and should be swiftly approved by the House before they adjourn.


Yup. At about half the cost, with a lot of waste pulled out, and without the tax change requirement. See what you can accomplish when you don't use something like this as leverage for unrelated agenda items?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Dec 22 2010 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Wait, did you just praise Jon Stewart? You know he's a liberal, right? And Jewish.

Those two just seem incompatible with you.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#21 Dec 22 2010 at 4:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory wrote:
Wait, did you just praise Jon Stewart? You know he's a liberal, right? And Jewish.


Wasn't commenting on Jon Stewart at all. I was pointing out that the Bill that was passed was not the same bill the GOP was filibustering. So praising someone for helping to raise awareness and get this thing done is valid in the sense that something was done, but doesn't address why it wasn't getting done before and what changed to make it happen now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Dec 22 2010 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
without the tax change requirement

They just created a new tax instead of closing an existing tax loophole. Win!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Dec 22 2010 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
without the tax change requirement

They just created a new tax instead of closing an existing tax loophole. Win!


But you agree that the GOPs opposition to this wasn't just because they're big meanies who want to make 9/11 first responders suffer, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Dec 22 2010 at 6:48 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
without the tax change requirement

They just created a new tax instead of closing an existing tax loophole. Win!


But you agree that the GOPs opposition to this wasn't just because they're big meanies who want to make 9/11 first responders suffer, right?


Actually, it's because they want to keep anything done in the Senate at a snail's pace. Why should they actually govern when they can drag their feet & slack?
#25 Dec 22 2010 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But you agree that the GOPs opposition to this wasn't just because they're big meanies who want to make 9/11 first responders suffer, right?

I never said they were.

I do believe that they were more than willing to let 9/11 first responders suffer in a fit of petulance at closing a tax loophole.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Dec 22 2010 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But you agree that the GOPs opposition to this wasn't just because they're big meanies who want to make 9/11 first responders suffer, right?

I never said they were.


The OP did. Or did you fail to read the title of the thread?

Quote:
I do believe that they were more than willing to let 9/11 first responders suffer in a fit of petulance at closing a tax loophole.


And I think that the Dems were more than willing to hold the needs of those first responders hostage to an agenda that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. So stick that in your Santa hat and smoke it! :)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 222 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (222)