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

You can't even bring yourself to admit you were wrong when you said that the surpluses weren't used to pay down the debt. Instead resorting to putting words in my mouth that aren't even remotely close to what I've argued thus far.

You're shameless.
 
I love how the less people (seriously) respond to Bob, the more he ramps up the craziness/amount of posts to try and get a rise out of people.

It's almost cute in a batshit crazy, pathetic way.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You can't even bring yourself to admit you were wrong when you said that the surpluses weren't used to pay down the debt. Instead resorting to putting words in my mouth that aren't even remotely close to what I've argued thus far.

You're shameless.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that some of our debt requires minimum payments, correct?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I love how the less people (seriously) respond to Bob, the more he ramps up the craziness/amount of posts to try and get a rise out of people.

It's almost cute in a batshit crazy, pathetic way.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. Posting that Myke is right and following up with a video of a presidential press conference from the same day is pretty batshit crazy and pathetic.
 
[quote name='camoor']Thanks for linking that was great.

One of the Fox anchors tells the truth - I wonder if UB's head exploded.[/QUOTE]

Slightly - surprised to actually see that straight forward style of talk from someone on FOX. If it wasn't for the fact I'd have to tune to FOX News, I might consider checking out this guy's show...
 
Almost. He wanted to bring attention to the issue and have the populace hold representatives' feet to the fire but he never quite said who it was holding up the works.
 
A deal has been reached in the Senate to approve a bill that covers the cost of medical care for rescue workers and others who became sick from breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

The compromise on Wednesday was reached after Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both New York Democrats, agreed to changes demanded by conservative Republicans, who raised concerns about the measure’s cost and prevented the bill from advancing in the Senate.

Under the new agreement, the bill provides $4.3 billion over five years for health coverage to the 9/11 workers, instead of the original $7.4 billion over eight years.

In a joint statement issued on Wednesday, Senators Schumer and Gillibrand called the deal a “Christmas miracle.”

“Over the last 24 hours, our Republican colleagues have negotiated in good faith to forge a workable final package that will protect the health of the men and women who selflessly answered our nation’s call in her hour of greatest need,” the statement said. “This has been a long process, but we are now on the cusp of the victory these heroes deserve.”

With lawmakers eager to get home for the holidays, the Senate is expected within the hour to take up the bill by unanimous consent, an agreement made between the parties to bypass any potentially time-consuming debate.

One of the main critics of the bill, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, expressed satisfaction with the legislation’s final price tag.

“Every American recognizes the heroism of the 9/11 first responders,” he said. “But it is not compassionate to help one group while robbing future generations of opportunity.”

The new version of the bill calls for providing $1.8 billion over the next five years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at Ground Zero; New York City would pay 10 percent of these costs. The legislation also sets aside $2.5 billion to reopen the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund for five years to provide payment for job and economic losses.

An additional provision allows for money from the Compensation Fund to be paid to any eligible claimant who receives a payment under the settlement of lawsuits that 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers recently reached with New York. Currently, those who receive a settlement are limited in how much compensation they can get from the Fund, according to the bill’s sponsors.

There are nearly 60,000 people enrolled in health-monitoring and treatment programs related to the 9/11 attacks, according to the bill’s sponsors. The federal government provides the bulk of the funding for these programs.

The deal reached on Wednesday was a major turn of events for a bill that had been stalled in the upper chamber. Only 12 days ago, Senate Republicans blocked the legislation from proceeding to a floor vote.

But Republicans backed down after facing a barrage of criticism — not just from Democrats, but also from traditional Republican allies, including former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, and conservative news outlets like Fox News.

Should the Senate pass the measure, it will go to the House, where it is expected to be swiftly approved and then sent to President Obama for his signature.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/deal-for-911-health-bill-reached-in-senate/?hp

fuck this stupid goddamn country. I'm sick of it.
 
One of the main critics of the bill, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, expressed satisfaction with the legislation’s final price tag.

“Every American recognizes the heroism of the 9/11 first responders,” he said. “But it is not compassionate to help one group while robbing future generations of opportunity.”

fuck off Tom.

But Republicans backed down after facing a barrage of criticism — not just from Democrats, but also from traditional Republican allies, including former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, and conservative news outlets like Fox News.

No fucking shit, it was one of their stupidest god damn moves in the last 2 years.
 
I propose a new GOP slogan:

"The Republican Party, putting money before people for generations."
 
[quote name='nasum']

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.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with your state of NY should bankroll it all, but wholeheartedly agree with the second part of your post. It amazes me that it is actually legal, to wad up a bunch of unrelated crap, throw it at the end of a bill, then get pissy when the whole bill dies because of the non-related bullshit.

I wonder if Congressman even keep a straight face when they pull these kind of antics.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']No fucking shit, it was one of their stupidest god damn moves in the last 2 years.[/QUOTE]

But it's ok, they came back to the table in good faith and worked out a better plan for a Christmas miracle! They are the true American heroes in this case!!! Thank god they are here to keep these tax-and-spend DemoCRAPs in line!!!!!11!!1!

:roll::roll::roll:

I can't believe how the Republicans not only get away with these crazy stances but actually look better afterwards.
 
Intransigent "deficit hawk" Tom Coburn is finally dropping his threat to single-handedly obstruct the 9/11 first responders healthcare bill in the Senate. He's dropping his threat because he won: The bill, which already went from $7.4 to $6.2 billion in benefits and compensation, is now down to $1.5 for benefits and $2.7 for compensation. In addition to the cut in funding, the fund will now permanently close after five years.

Coburn's original objection was that the bill was too pricey -- though it was paid for by closing tax loopholes, which means that his real objection was that rich people were going to have to pay for non-rich people to have their illnesses treated. Here he is last night complaining that the government doesn't have "an extra $11 billion" for sick first responders (Coburn made up the cost of the bill because he didn't like the way the CBO scored it):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C29m_ffrAmU&feature=player_embedded

A bit of history: Coburn voted yes on exempting millionaires from the estate tax, and yes on tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, but he has been fighting fiercely to stop the government from paying for treatment for 9/11 first responders with cancer. (Un-fun fact: Coburn's a medical doctor and a cancer survivor himself!)

Democrats want to pass the bill using unanimous consent, so that they can finish the lame duck session before Christmas, but obviously that allows Coburn to block the bill by himself. A cloture vote would require breaking a filibuster, which might be possible, but would allow Coburn to delay the vote until next week -- at which point the House may not come back into session to vote. So negotiators were forced to acquiesce to Coburn's demand that the bill become significantly less generous.

A group of first responders attempted to meet with Coburn earlier today, but they were forbidden from entering his office:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywqh_2REsuI

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/22/coburn_responders_bill/index.html
 
Well if the tax and spend liberal communists would stop spending we'd have the money for this!
 
That's not surprising, but you realize that spending for this would also be spending by politicians, so you're got a bit of a paradox going.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Priorities. We need them.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Tax breaks for the top 1%, bailouts for private businesses and an even larger military budget = YES
Anything to help anybody else or better society as a whole = fuck NO
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Agreed.

Tax breaks for the top 1%, bailouts for private businesses and an even larger military budget = YES
Anything to help anybody else or better society as a whole = fuck NO[/QUOTE]

A.) "Tax breaks" != spending.
B.) Try supporting/electing people that oppose corporate welfare and military spending.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) "Tax breaks" != spending.[/QUOTE]

kind of is when we have to borrow to cover the funding holes it causes

[quote name='UncleBob']B.) Try supporting/electing people that oppose corporate welfare and military spending.[/QUOTE]

might as well tell me to try to support/elect a leprechaun which will fix the deficit with his pot of gold

there is no real, serious candidate in florida (or on a national stage) running on that.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']kind of is when we have to borrow to cover the funding holes it causes.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Clak']Tax breaks do equal spending when a reduction in spending doesn't follow the tax break.[/QUOTE]

Both of these situations are directly correlated with spending.

You can raise taxes as high as you want, but if you don't control your spending, you're going to have a deficit. On the opposite side of that, if you (hypothetically) cut spending to $0, then it doesn't matter what your tax level is - you'll always run a surplus (or, at least, neutral budget).
 
[quote name='Clak']Tax breaks do equal spending when a reduction in spending doesn't follow the tax break.[/QUOTE]

Tax cuts being paid for by magic fairy farts is the new right wing talking point and it is not worth engaging.

Ask a right wing politician what they think they can do to balance them out and you get silence or "everything" (which is the same as saying nothing).

The ability of the right wing to get their talking points out to their followers and having them repeat ad nauseum no matter what the facts are is phenomenal (you see it with the housing bubble bust being blamed on brown people).

If Rush Limbaugh and the Koch brothers started blaming things on Invisible Space Jews, you would see the usual suspects here repeating it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Tax cuts being paid for by magic fairy farts is the new right wing talking point and it is not worth engaging.

Ask a right wing politician what they think they can do to balance them out and you get silence or "everything" (which is the same as saying nothing).[/QUOTE]

Excuse me, I don't know if you heard of liberal hero Darwin and a thing called survival of the fittest? (what's that? evolution? ... no that's bullshit, the earth was created in six days, six thousand years ago) We need to cut all benefits and safety nets for the lower and middle class. THIS IS AMERICA! ANYBODY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT IF THEY WORK AT IT!!! If people want to be lazy then they don't deserve to have anything. On the flip side, if a person creates a monopoly and ruthlessly crushes all the competition...who's to say that they they need to pay more taxes on their enormous pile of money or that HIS COMPANY should be broken up? He needs all that money to CREATE MORE JOBS and the FREE MARKET will decide if his monopoly should be broken up. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT HE BE PUNISHED FOR BEING SO SUCCESSFUL!!! (estate tax? oh you mean the death tax? ... yeah, that should be abolished. how can you punish somebody for dying?!?)

And while we are at it, we need to privatize everything. The GOVERNMENT is so ineffective at everything and how can you expect them not to be without a profit motivating them. (What's that about providing a service for everybody? Yeah, maybe they do that in COMMIE PINKO FRANCE but this is AMERICA and in AMERICA, a business is suppose to make money. If you can't pay for it, maybe you should work harder and stop expecting to get free ride off of MY TAX MONEY!!!!!!!)

*/a surprisingly large number of people making barely above minimum wage or relying on government programs like Social Security or Medicare*
 
It does seem like some would just as soon as leave everyone to what amounts to social darwinism. And despite the feeling that the names Hitler and/or Nazi get thrown around way too much these days, the Nazis did in fact practice social darwinism, so I feel completely justified in calling someone a Nazi if they truly believe that's the path we should take.
 
[quote name='Clak']It does seem like some would just as soon as leave everyone to what amounts to social darwinism. And despite the feeling that the names Hitler and/or Nazi get thrown around way too much these days, the Nazis did in fact practice social darwinism, so I feel completely justified in calling someone a Nazi if they truly believe that's the path we should take.[/QUOTE]

But isn't that exactly what capitalism is? Social darwinism?
 
Let no one say that main stream politicians are out of touch with ordinary Americans. When faced with a decrease in income, instead of the sane, rational response of "What do I need to cut back on", they panic and say "What do I have to do in order to keep up my current lifestyle?"
 
Christ Almighty... I don't know what the world would ever do if there was an honest politician in office who voted on what they really thought was the best or right thing to do.

That said, these workers need support and there is no doubt about that. The biggest issue I have is why the Government and leaders of different groups involved in the cleanup didn't require workers to wear safety gear while doing the work? It would have been much cheaper to supply respirators and hazmat suits to workers then pay hospital bills in the future. Also, many of them would not have to die or get sick so early in their lives.

The government is broken. Both parties avoid standing up for their beliefs.
 
[quote name='Retom7']That said, these workers need support and there is no doubt about that. The biggest issue I have is why the Government and leaders of different groups involved in the cleanup didn't require workers to wear safety gear while doing the work? It would have been much cheaper to supply respirators and hazmat suits to workers then pay hospital bills in the future. Also, many of them would not have to die or get sick so early in their lives.[/QUOTE]

Mayor Giuliani mainly fucked that up with the support of Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...lleged_government_downplaying_of_health_risks
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']But isn't that exactly what capitalism is? Social darwinism?[/QUOTE]
In its most pure form, basically. Those who can't produce anything would be left to rot in the gutters. That's why the capitalistic chest-pounders tickle me so much. It's also why I laugh when I hear somebody say those were the "good ol' days".
 
kind of hard to compare "Social Darwinism" to the rather aggressive eugenics practiced by the Nazis...

either way, I think it's funny how this argument got framed as "blocking" when no block was ever made to any one at any time.
"Hi Doc, I'm a 9/11 responder and I seem to have a cough."
"GTFO!!"

Something tells me that never happened. Isn't it basically a supplemental fund that a person can apply to within 90 days of a diagnosis, if and only if they're insurance won't cover anything? That hardly sounds like "denying care" as is asserted in some of these articles. It's jsut as disgraceful as your typical Fox News hyperbolic reaction to, well anything really.
 
Eugenics means that you try to basically breed people like dogs. The Nazis had the same attitude toward those with disabilities as they had toward Jews. Social Darwinism would prescribe that we let nature take it's course in regards to the weak or infirm, and that's basically what they let happen. Rather than help them like we would here today, they either killed them or certainly provided no assistance at the least.

Eugenics and social darwinism could go hand and hand either way.

I have no idea what the insurance coverage of these folks is like, but if they've been forced out of work, it's possible they have none. Even getting on disability assistance can take a very, very long time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eugenics and social darwinism did (in both the US and Germany) and do go hand in hand. Eugenics is simply the logical conclusion of social darwinism.
 
Exactly, if you're going to breed a strong master race you have to let the weak die off as they naturally would. One is basically the means and the other is the end.
 
[quote name='nasum']kind of hard to compare "Social Darwinism" to the rather aggressive eugenics practiced by the Nazis...

either way, I think it's funny how this argument got framed as "blocking" when no block was ever made to any one at any time.
"Hi Doc, I'm a 9/11 responder and I seem to have a cough."
"GTFO!!"[/QUOTE]

Yeah, while we're at it how about that free healthcare for soldiers

"Hi Doc, I'm a soldier in Iraq and I seem to have a bullet in my shoulder."
"GTFO!!"
 
bread's done
Back
Top