Republicans block 9/11 health care for 9/11 workers.

Who is really surprised Republicans blocked this? Unless their elite base can make some dinero off of this...

Expect rants from cons but no moral justifications.
 
The U.S. has a history of asking for great sacrifices from people and then just abandoning them afterward.
 
It's really not a federal issue though, why the hell can't NYC or NY State take care of this on their own?

Also, this:
After the vote, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a chief sponsor of the bill in the House, urged Senate Democrats to include the 9/11 health bill in the larger tax-cut legislation to, in effect, dare Republicans to oppose it in that context.

-----------
Why do we need this trickery? Why combine unrelated bills to paint people's yes and no votes into something completely unrelated? It's that whole John Kerry "voted against it before I voted for it" mentality that just creates confusion.
Here's a brilliant suggestion; if the bill has to be a federal bill, why not put it up there by itself so everyone can vote about how they feel about a 9/11 health fund?
This is EXACTLY why nothing ever gets done by the US govt anymore. Bullshit legislation gets pushed into something else so that by the time you're voting yes on one issue you're likely voting yes on three or four more issues that you would otherwise vote no.
 
I really doubt that NY/C can financially handle it on their own. You expect some civil servants to be injured on the job, but not that many all in a short amount of time. I mean how do you really prepare for something like that? I doubt any state would be prepared to handle claims from that many people in such a short time.
 
Then NY/C votes whether or not they should do the fund and then requests federal funding. Either way its still not a federal issue.
 
[quote name='nasum']It's really not a federal issue though, why the hell can't NYC or NY State take care of this on their own?
[/QUOTE]

LMFAO! Oh, really? I suppose that the FEDERAL govts role and management of dealing with the aftermath of this attack does not make it a FEDERAL issue.:roll: You realize that that the FEDERAL gov't failed to recognize the health risks and put up adequate measures that people who put the welfare of others before their own were subjecting themselves to.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/nyregion/10health.html?_r=1&hp

Reasoning - We can not afford it
Cost - $7.4 billion
Reminder - Cost of the tax extension including the rich is over $300billion short term.

Any conservatives of the board want to step up and back this one?[/QUOTE]

Tax cuts don't cost the Federal Government anything.

Income is not spending.

Crappy thing for 'pubs to block, but your comparison isn't correct.
 
If revenue cuts arent balanced by spending cuts, then yes, that is a cost. You're borrowing money you would not have to otherwise borrow, and you're paying interest that you would not otherwise have paid. Unless you think interest isnt real.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']If revenue cuts arent balanced by spending cuts, then yes, that is a cost. You're borrowing money you would not have to otherwise borrow, and you're paying interest that you would not otherwise have paid. Unless you think interest isnt real.[/QUOTE]

The interest comes from the spending, not the lack of income. I can't go out and spend twice what I make, then complain that it's because my boss doesn't pay me enough.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I can't go out and spend twice what I make, then complain that it's because my boss doesn't pay me enough.[/QUOTE]
You really can do every part of this.
 
Lets say that you, Bob, are the government, and that wages that you get paid by your job are the equivalent of tax revenue.

You currently make $10k a month and you currently spend $10k a month. If you your employer were to say, Bob, could you afford it if I cut your pay to $5k a month, what is the answer to this?
 
When things are relative to each other, you can have multiple statements true at the same time.

Por ejemplo:
I'm standing next to you. You move 5 steps forward. Why are we no longer standing in parity?
a) You moved 5 steps forward
b) I didn't move 5 steps forward

Its not one or the other, they're both describing an equivalent scenario.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Tax cuts don't cost the Federal Government anything.
[/QUOTE]

I don't have enough free time these days to argue so I don't post much here, but you can't be this stupid.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Tax cuts don't cost the Federal Government anything.[/QUOTE]

I don't think Karl Rove even believes this.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Lets say that you, Bob, are the government, and that wages that you get paid by your job are the equivalent of tax revenue.

You currently make $10k a month and you currently spend $10k a month. If you your employer were to say, Bob, could you afford it if I cut your pay to $5k a month, what is the answer to this?[/QUOTE]

Your analogy would be more like...

Making $10,000 a month, then asking to take a pay cut to ~$8,176.19.
Also, we don't work for the government - the government is supposed to work for us. So, think of it as us employers telling the employee - "You know what? Times are tough. We're all having to cut back - build up our savings, pay off some debt, manage the rising costs of goods and gas. We just can't afford to continue paying you this over-inflated salary."

But, to answer your question, I would look at the situation like I need to find another revenue source *or* cut my spending. I wouldn't start putting $5K/Month on a credit card, then complain because my interest rates are so high.
 
Quick, someone tell me where the costs are in this chart (obviously, I just threw in numbers)...

fbs.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Your analogy would be more like...

Making $10,000 a month, then asking to take a pay cut to ~$8,176.19.
Also, we don't work for the government - the government is supposed to work for us. So, think of it as us employers telling the employee - "You know what? Times are tough. We're all having to cut back - build up our savings, pay off some debt, manage the rising costs of goods and gas. We just can't afford to continue paying you this over-inflated salary."

But, to answer your question, I would look at the situation like I need to find another revenue source *or* cut my spending. I wouldn't start putting $5K/Month on a credit card, then complain because my interest rates are so high.[/QUOTE]

I agree. We need to deny help for 9/11 rescue workers so the top 1% can keep their tax break.

Jesus you LIEberals...get some priorities! :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I agree. We need to deny help for 9/11 rescue workers so the top 1% can keep their tax break.

Jesus you LIEberals...get some priorities! :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:[/QUOTE]

Obviously. Because the only possible way we could afford to help the 9/11 workers is by increasing the tax on the top 1%. There's absolutely, positively no other way we could ever, ever afford it otherwise.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Obviously. Because the only possible way we could afford to help the 9/11 workers is by increasing the tax on the top 1%. There's absolutely, positively no other way we could ever, ever afford it otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Well, let's look at the fact that the Republicans threatened to block every bill until the tax breaks for the top 1.5% were kept...and after they get it, they vote down this bill which provides health care for 9/11 rescue workers because "we can't afford it".

Who knows, maybe we could have if they would allow the government to raise it's revenue instead of keeping record low taxes.

But seriously, you are defending a party which just blocked health care to 9/11 rescue workers.

Discussion is dead between people on the right and left. You are a horrible person and this is the last time I respond to you here.
 
You're correct. Discussion is dead. Mostly because people like you don't bother to read anything that doesn't fit inside of your pre-conceived idea of what other people are.

[quote name='Sporadic']But seriously, you are defending a party which just blocked health care to 9/11 rescue workers.[/quote]

[quote name='UncleBob']Crappy thing for 'pubs to block[/QUOTE]

Calling someone crappy isn't a very good defense of them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're correct. Discussion is dead. Mostly because people like you don't bother to read anything that doesn't fit inside of your pre-conceived idea of what other people are.
[/QUOTE]
callingkettleblack.jpg

5247550705
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're correct. Discussion is dead. Mostly because people like you don't bother to read anything that doesn't fit inside of your pre-conceived idea of what other people are.[/QUOTE]

callingkettleblackfix.jpg
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I don't have enough free time these days to argue so I don't post much here, but you can't be this stupid.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. Right wing talk radio has been echoing this theme for weeks in the run up to the vote on extending tax cuts, so I suspect that's where Bob got it from.

The premise, in their minds, is based on the idea of 'redistribution of wealth,' and that, to them, it only moves in one direction (towards the poor).

Cutting the estate tax to a $5M buffer and 35% of everything else (from $4M and 50%) is not redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. Keeping it as it is and funding unemployment extensions is redistribution of wealth.

It's not that hard to see how they come to this conclusion. Wealth is created in the marketplace, and the marketplace is sacred and uncorrupted. Therefore, any outcome of the market is inherently fair because it came from the market.

Tautological thinking, you say? Well, of course I would agree that it is circular and therefore useless; but I don't get 15 hours a week to scream at the public.

When people step away from the idea that the marketplace is sacred and realize how Unions are harming the well being of the nation of individual workers, when you read Larry Bartels' research and discover that the political interests of the wealthy are consistently adhered to by both parties (tho' not equally, of course) just as the interests of the middle class and lower class are summarily ignored (really, go grab some of his stuff off of google scholar or buy his 2010 book offa Amazon), then you'll realize that redistribution of wealth can go both ways, but primarily goes in the direction of increasing the wealth of the top 1% (and more top 0.1%) of income earners.

The market is not the lord and god the right makes it out to be, and the logic they present to make that argument is circular and therefore useless and incorrect.

Oh, so earlier I said Unions are destroying the United States. Of course I meant that. You didn't think I meant *labor* unions, did you? P'shaw! The new unions are the collectivist activities of corporate interests, who manifest in news corporations, multinational conglomerates, political action committees, politically skewed think tanks, lobbyist organizations - all the kinds of collective representation that labor unions are on the losing end of at this point. We are in an era of growing union power - but we don't acknowledge that business interests are fighting the collectivism of the 98% via collectivist means of their own. They are the unions now.
 
::slowclap::

That all sounds well and good, Myke, but it doesn't change the fact that, even if we eliminated all of the "Bush" tax cuts, the Federal Government would still be spending more than it takes in. Do you purpose we raise taxes on the evil rich to 50%? 75%?

What happens when our rulers in Washington still spend more than they're taking in? Bump the tax up to 90%? 99%?

The worst thing you can do for a guy who doesn't know how to manage his money is give him more money.

Here's a challenge I'd like to set forth. More than one of you has come forward saying that you'd give up your tax cut in exchange for the evil rich losing their cut. Well, you and I cannot make that happen - but you can figure up what your increased income due to the tax cuts will be for next year and donate it to a good cause. Like one of the 9/11 funds. You can use your money to make a difference.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']::slowclap::

That all sounds well and good, Myke, but it doesn't change the fact that, even if we eliminated all of the "Bush" tax cuts, the Federal Government would still be spending more than it takes in. Do you purpose we raise taxes on the evil rich to 50%? 75%?[/quote]

Of course. Return to the marginal tax rates we had pre-Reagan (remember, back when our national debt was under $1 trillion?).

What happens when our rulers in Washington still spend more than they're taking in? Bump the tax up to 90%? 99%?
Click to expand...

We had surpluses for 2 years under Clinton, on the back of annually declining budget deficits. Stop treating deficits as a given, because they aren't. Of course, you need deficits to make your broader economic point about why we need tax cuts (yeah, that doesn't make sense to me, but it's still true), so it's important to be sure to frame your argument as it fits your ideology. It's better to win than be correct, correct?

The worst thing you can do for a guy who doesn't know how to manage his money is give him more money.
Click to expand...

vague vague vauge. and inaccurate. we did have budgets under control during Clinton. Then Bush cut tax rates.

Here's a challenge I'd like to set forth. More than one of you has come forward saying that you'd give up your tax cut in exchange for the evil rich losing their cut. Well, you and I cannot make that happen - but you can figure up what your increased income due to the tax cuts will be for next year and donate it to a good cause. Like one of the 9/11 funds. You can use your money to make a difference.
Click to expand...

What a charade. This is the same "well, if you want tax rates so bad why don't you write a check to the IRS?" meme that's all up on talk radio (you're hitting all the popular themes this week, Bob. Who is your favorite host?). That's not going to provide us with a balanced budget.

I've already said I'd be much happier with *all* the cuts expiring than including the top 2% in extending them. I've never argued anything else. This just means $80.40 more per month for me. I can live without that.

The point isn't to turn the IRS into a donor system, it's to return to progressive tax rates so our budget is under control, as well as to keep the wealthy accountable for their pillaging of the economy. Yeah, I support the redistribution of wealth. But so do you. Anyone concerned with tax rates one way or another supports redistribution of wealth. I hope you can at least see that much.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course. Return to the marginal tax rates we had pre-Reagan (remember, back when our national debt was under $1 trillion?).[/quote]

Let's go back to the tax rates when our national debt was $0.

We had surpluses for 2 years under Clinton, on the back of annually declining budget deficits.
Click to expand...

Go research "Clinton Budget Myth". I'm sure if you play with the numbers long enough, you could come up with whatever outcome you want. But I tell you what, head on over to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Here's numbers of interest:

Lowest National Debt during Clinton's terms:
01/29/93 $4,167,200,410,899.83

Highest National Debt during Clinton's terms:
03/30/00 $5,788,541,874,357.52

National Debt at the start of Clinton's terms:
01/20/93 $4,188,092,107,183.60

National Debt at the end of Clinton's terms:
01/19/01 $5,727,776,738,304.60

Weird - that biggest number is really close to the number at the end. That lowest number? I believe that was during the time frame when the the policies of Bush Sr. were still in place. I will admit that Clinton-era budgeting was better than what we had under Bush Jr. or Obama - by a lot.

Oddly enough, congress was in control of the Republicans during those final six years.

vague vague vauge. and inaccurate. we did have budgets under control during Clinton. Then Bush cut tax rates.
Click to expand...

"under control". heh.

What a charade. This is the same "well, if you want tax rates so bad why don't you write a check to the IRS?" meme that's all up on talk radio (you're hitting all the popular themes this week, Bob. Who is your favorite host?). That's not going to provide us with a balanced budget.
Click to expand...

Dave Ramsey. Gets a bit too Jesus-y at times though. Herman Cain is up there too. Thanks for asking.

So... balanced budget? Where were you right after the Democrats passed PAY-GO (great idea), then turned around the next week and threw hissy fits because some Republican (forget who) wanted them to pay for the bills they wanted to pass? Oh, I remember, it was bad because that guy wasn't playing politics "fairly".
 
The word I used was "deficit." Your numbers are "debt."

Alternately, let's follow your childish advice and go back to debt neutral tax rates. 90% for the wealthy it is, then. Glad to have you on our side, Bob. But be quiet, because you're a bit embarrassing at times, like Randy Quaid's character in those "Vacation" movies.
 
The problem with the Clinton "surplus" (which, of course, was just smoke and mirrors, reshuffling of numbers - no better than Bush Jr. not including the costs of the wars in his budgets) is that it doesn't do a whole lot of good to run a surplus if you just spend the money on hookers and coke. That money should have went towards paying down the debt. Which it didn't. Which goes back to my comment above - giving someone who can't handle money more money doesn't help them.

The funny thing is, Myke I would actually support higher tax rates if I thought our Federal Government would use the money to pay down the debt and cut spending levels to something sane. Of course, the odds of that happening are about as good as you making a post in response with someone who has an ideology that differs from you without you having to try to sneak in clever and witty insults.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The problem with the Clinton "surplus" (which, of course, was just smoke and mirrors, reshuffling of numbers)[/quote]

prove it. you've already conflated deficits and debt, the surefire sign that one is out of their element in terms of making arguments. You tried to counter using data, but it just do happens you were completely off in what data to use. Now you're resorting to conjecture. That's a pretty quick concession-without-admitting-it (which is par for your course).

The old "I don't believe you, so when I can't come up with anything better, I'm just gonna make some shit up" argument. I've seen that one enough in my life; you shouldn't even bother responding if that's all you have.

it doesn't do a whole lot of good to run a surplus if you just spend the money on hookers and coke. That money should have went towards paying down the debt. Which it didn't.
Click to expand...

Correct. Remember why it didn't?
 
I don't get where you keep coming up with the idea that I confused debt and deficit. Just because I countered your deficit claims with the actual data for the national debt with regards to the idea that you don't give someone who doesn't know how to manage money more money, doesn't indicate that I don't know the difference between the two.

But in regards to the Clinton "surplus", do some research. Here's some terms to start with: Clinton Surplus Social Security Off-Budget I mean, sure, anyone can come up with a balanced budget if they just remove items from the budget that they still plan to pay for, but just don't want to count.

Correct. Remember why it didn't?
Click to expand...
Because politicians in Washington don't know how to handle money, therefore we shouldn't give them more money?
 
*starts to type something to unclebob and realizes since it does not fit in bobs "pre-conceived idea of what other people are."(or what the world is) it wont make a difference. Its not like we have not had dozens of people point out with perfectly good logic and perfectly good links 100s if not 1,000s of times when your wrong on an issue and have it make no difference. When you live in a glass house you should not toss stones, especially not stones handed to you by people who claim their on your side but are clearly not(meaning the sources you quote which most people would not wipe their ass with but you believe since it furthers your beliefs).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't get where you keep coming up with the idea that I confused debt and deficit.[/QUOTE]

I pointed out that we had two years of deficit surpluses under Clinton.

You cited the debt numbers for 1993 and 2001 and said "nuh-uh."

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Kinda like your nyopic idea of what "redistribution of wealth" is.
 
Deficit Pay attention to the "an excess of expenditure over revenue " definition.
Debt This should be pretty obvious.

I can't beleive we have to define these.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I pointed out that we had two years of deficit surpluses under Clinton.

You cited the debt numbers for 1993 and 2001 and said "nuh-uh."[/QUOTE]

I cited the debt numbers (that increased) showing that any "deficit surpluses" (wha...? really? "deficit surpluses"?) were not applied to the debt, thus if they did exist, it shows that our rulers in Washington don't know how to handle money.

All this and you just ignore the fact that the evil Republicans controlled Congress (you know, that group of people who hold the purse strings) during this time. Instead, you type stuff like "deficit surpluses".
 
oh, budget surplus. whateva. I do know the difference b/w a deficit and debt, however.

you cited debt numbers for two years, two presidential terms apart, and dropped them like abandoned children, offering up only the most specious and pitiful analysis (um, it was higher at the end than at the beginning, democrats suxors).

If surpluses were not applied to the debt, perhaps you could 'splain to us, mathematically, how the peak national debt under Clinton occurred nearly a year before he left office (i.e., why is the debt lower at the end of Clinton's term than it was in March of 2000)? Mathematically, I mean. Proof, fact, factorum.

Show your work. How is a lower number bigger than a higher number? That's what I want you to demonstrate, since you saying "surpluses...were not applied to the debt" suggests that, well, they weren't applied to the debt. So help me understand the math behind $5.73T>$5.79T. I eagerly await your response.

additionally, you're going through the cookie cutter rhetorical strategies of the right like clockwork.

- the clinton surpluses weren't surpluses
- now that we've established there were supluses (not that i wanted to admit to it, lord knows i tried), let's bring up the republican congress
- if you don't think you're being taxed enough, why don't you mail a check to the IRS?
- cutting taxes doesn't cost the government anything

FFS, man, have some ideas of your own. you're a veritable right wing talk radio see n say.
 
I'm sorry that my ideas aren't as awesome as your "deficit surplus" idea. We need to redline that thing to Washington. That will solve all of our problems. Myke, you're the king, ba-bee.

PS: Going to work, but to address one of your points quickly - I suggested you mail a check to one of the 9/11 funds. You know, that thing everyone is acting so badly like they care about? Even though they're more concerned with using it as a political tool to make the people they don't like look bad?
 
You are the political equivalent of a bop bag, which is why I posted that image. You offer up something of little substance that is easily refuted, yet you return with that very argument.

e.g., "if you're so concerned about the deficit, why don't YOUUUUU cut a check to the IRS?"

If you want to hinge on me misspeaking, go ahead and do it. I've corrected myself, and you're exposing how little you have to offer intellectually by continuing to dig into one minute misstatement. You're a reflection of our hyperidiotic media.

I noticed you avoided demonstrating how $5.73 trillion is a larger number than $5.79 trillion. That was your primary argument against the Clinton surpluses (that and a baseless allusion to 'smoke and mirrors').

Care to show some integrity and respond to that question?
 
hmm a deficit surplus for 2 years under Clinton... who would have ever thought something like that would happen during the years that the Dow Jones quadrupled and the Nasdaq grew by 8 fold? Nice that in that eight year period of crazy growth for both money and taxes that the government actually fell short in their overspending for 2 years. :drool:
 
[quote name='Afflicted']hmm a deficit surplus for 2 years under Clinton... who would have ever thought something like that would happen during the years that the Dow Jones quadrupled and the Nasdaq grew by 8 fold? Nice that in that eight year period of crazy growth for both money and taxes that the government actually fell short in their overspending for 2 years. :drool:[/QUOTE]

Which Presidents raised taxes and which ones cut them in living memory?
 
[quote name='Afflicted']hmm a deficit surplus for 2 years under Clinton... who would have ever thought something like that would happen during the years that the Dow Jones quadrupled and the Nasdaq grew by 8 fold? Nice that in that eight year period of crazy growth for both money and taxes that the government actually fell short in their overspending for 2 years. :drool:[/QUOTE]

Oh, don't worry - they still over-spent. They just didn't include all those items in the budget.

It's similar to what Bush did with some of his military spending. Pushing it "off budget" so his budgets looked better than they were, even though he knew he was going to be spending that money.

It's a very effective way of fooling the fools into thinking you are better at making budgets than you are. Don't get me wrong, Clinton was far beyond both Bush Jr. and Obama in this category - but he was far from the holy patron saint of budgets.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I noticed you avoided demonstrating how $5.73 trillion is a larger number than $5.79 trillion. That was your primary argument against the Clinton surpluses (that and a baseless allusion to 'smoke and mirrors').

Care to show some integrity and respond to that question?[/QUOTE]

*cough*
 
[quote name='mykevermin']*cough*[/QUOTE]

I have a credit card with ~$500 on it. I was paid Thursday, so yesterday, I made a payment of $100. Today, I went out with a friend, had dinner, bought some games and put about $150 on the card. So, two days ago, my debt was $500. Yesterday, it decreased to $400. Today, it went up to $550.

Yes, technically, I paid off some of my debt with some of my surplus pay. Yet, doing it knowing full well that I was going out tonight and spending that much (and more) wasn't very responsible of me. But it did mean that I made my "minimum" payment for the month... and I had a decrease in my debt. Behold - the wonders of smoke and mirrors in the world of budgets!
 
You're totally right Myke. Clinton did a wonderful job not increasing the total debt. Clinton and the Democratic party is wholly responsible for the reasonable and responsible spending done during Clinton's era. Clinton's higher tax rates are completely what we need now, and anyone who disagrees is a pathetic moron loser who doesn't know what he/she is talking about and should never be trusted to give financial advice to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top