Republicans have fucked up. The 911 Responders Bill was supposed to provide medical coverage for the heroes who bravely entered the flames of the demolished buildings to save lives. Republicans cock-blocked it and it pretty much faded from memories. Until Jon Stewart brought it up while talking to Mike Huckabee and denounced the filibuster by Republicans to block it. Since then, the bill has been the talk of FoxNews' Shep Smith, who said that it was a national shame that the brave heroes would be left to pay for the diseases they contracted by the noxious fumes or the maiming injuries. Shep Smith demanded that Republican senators who blocked the bill should explained themselves for such a disgrace. The Republicans said the tax-cut was more important and in higher priority because of the Jan. 01 deadline. So that's the answer, tax-cuts to millionaires and billionaires are more important than paying back the heroes of 9/11 for their sacrifices. Jon also interviewed four responders to hear their thoughts on the filibuster. They were disgusted with the move. Jon isn't that bad of a liberal huh? [video=youtube;gE20kU6S5ng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE20kU6S5ng&feature=related[/video]
John does not give a rats ass about that bill or the responders. Those widows should fork up some of their winnings they got to split some insane figure like 50 billion didn't they? Its mighty selfish of them not to help pay the first responders medical claims. They could pat the claims 1000 times over and still be millionaires. Think about it. If one of our veterans die in action fighting bravely for our country their family received 55 thousand dollars. But some lady whose husband was likely an asshole and was in the middle of processing paperwork for divorce proceedings. Wins 500 million because her husband died when the towers went down? A lot of the asshole responders milked the clock for money and did not do much and were already working on a disability legal suit so they would be set for life after the cleanup. They are as bad as the terrorists. They are frauds and crooks.
What? You're OK with my un-PC rant? There are a lot of spongers out there besides the first responders they all need a reality check. Obama will have spent in one term more money then every presidential administration before him combined and since that mean ole Scrooge did not care for the first responders then that is what we get for electing the most un-ethical administration and congress in the history of this country in the 2006 - 2008 election cycles. All that money and what to show for it. "We need more money" .
So you oppose the 9/11 Responders Bill? And whatever the fuck are you talking about with the widows, it's a different story altogether.
I cannot oppose a bill I have not read and for the same reason cannot judge someone else who opposed the bill. Did you read it? And BTW why are bills like the budget and healthcare reform written on 2000 plus pages? Whats up with that? Why do that and do it behind closed doors and then bring it to vote a few days after proposing it when no one can possibly understand what they are voting on? Do they do it so their media minions can misrepresent them and dupe the masses? What is your definition of an earmark? Where do earmarks fit in to all of this?
I didn't read it. However, with the Bush taxes extended and costing billions in revenue, don't you think that some of that money could have went to the responders to alleviate the medical costs? Isn't that literally the least the government could do to show support for the heroes of 9/11? In the meantime you have billions spent on dumb pork projects. You and I both agree that raising taxes in a recession is a stupid idea. However, when the taxes only affect the top 1.9% of the population and costing a ton of money in revenues, the idea of an extension and then complaining about the cost of covering the responders sounds silly to me. Just take the estate tax for example, it only affects very wealthy families, small businesses and family farms are exempt. The abolition of the tax costs billions every year in revenue. Was it absolutely necessary? To me it was a wink-wink-nudge-nudge to the powerful contributors of the political campaigns. This money could have been used to extend tax credits to small businesses and tax cuts for middle-class families. It bothers me that the wealthiest get all the tax cuts they want while the middle-class families get nothing and the first responders are left to their own devices. I love tax cuts, but they have to affect the true contributors to society, not to some fat jerk-off in the Caribbeans spending his money on Thai hookers and congratulating himself on his staggering fortune. Am I deranged or do you see some sense in what I said?
They way you framed it makes perfect sense and there is the delemia. It's like the statistical manipulation you previously mentioned. To me its all smoke and mirrors IMHO And that is the reason BTW for the need for secret closed door meetings 2000 page bills and earmarks. I'm certain the reps had good reason and this mess with Stewart is a bunch of smoke and mirrors
I'm all for transparency and it should be demanded of the government at every level. The healthcare bill was done in a hurry and behind closed doors, so I agree with you when it comes to delaying signing something like that. However, it doesn't mean that the bill itself is a bad thing. That's the fucking problem with Democrats; they have good ideas, but they can't find a way to apply those ideas properly. I'm glad that people criticize the healthcare bill or any bill for that matter, I believe that the moment people stop caring, is the moment when the government starts the anal raping. But I don't like seeing a good idea shut down "just because" either, criticizing shouldn't mean hating. If something smells fishy, remove it, the rest should be able to please everybody. The idea behind the healthcare bill is a noble one. I mean, don't we all wish the best on everybody else? Unfortunately, reality dictates that it's impossible for everybody to get the same slice of cake. It's common sense. However, as a modern society we should try our darnedest to come close to it, without tipping over into the realm of big governments. I think it's possible. As for Jon Stewart, I know you don't like him but he does make sense once in a while. Reviving the 9/11 Responders Bill was a good idea. It brought back the idea on the table where it can be analyzed, criticized, and finally made into something real that will make sense and not cost a fortune.
So if I get this right, would the state-level government be able to remove parts of a bill within their own state? Even a federal bill? That would solve the healthcare debate. If Texas doesn't like parts of the bill, they could remove some of it and if the people don't like it, they could move to a state where the bill suits their needs better. Would that make sense or am I getting this wrong?
So am I understanding the video correctly, that this isnt for the responders that died in 9/11, this is for those that showed up and worked in the ruins? Where I work, and we do have some bad ka-ka, we have devices that actually 'breathe' the air and measure particulates in said air. Allowing responders, and workers, to know the exact amounts of what contaminates are in the air and if respiratory protection is neccessary. Now with all this information, that responders learn before they are ever given their boots and SCBAs, if I decided to put my self in harms way it's on me. Now, was it a government job, or were they contracted and hired by the state to perform the cleanup? Also, using the 'in an act of war' defense is BS. Joe mentioned the 55k the families of soldiers get if they are KIA, so a rich lawyer/economist/doctor - that has life insurance, is entitled to millions upon millions of tax dollars and the soldiers family is not? I dont know, seems kind of ass backwards to me.
In the minutes and hours following the attacks, rescuers went into the ruins to find and pull out the survivors. Do you really think that they had time to wait for devices and respiratory equipment? The responders were firefighters, paramedics, and police officers. The 9/11 Responders Bill is, in theory, necessary to defray the health care costs of the responders who contracted respiratory diseases or those who suffered debilitating injuries while performing the rescues. I have no idea where you get the rich/lawyer/economist angle from, the bill is for those who had no or little health insurance to begin with. I mean, is it that fucking hard to thank and take care of those who bravely risked their lives to save others? You call them heroes, yet you pay them like chumps and treat them like shit. Same goes with soldiers, they get almost nothing for health care when they come back and if they die, the families get crumbs. But wait, tax cuts to multi-millionaires are much higher on the priority list right? Who gives a shit about heroes and dead soldiers.
If you had read my post, I asked 'So am I understanding the video correctly, that this isnt for the responders that died in 9/11, this is for those that showed up and worked in the ruins?' I am referring to those that were part of the clean up process following the attacks. I am not referring to those responders that were on site when the tower fell. Understanding the 'tunnel vision' process that happens when ones fellow responders have fallen and the intense desire to rush in and help them out. Standard Operating Procedure is to verify the atmosphere before entering a site, no matter how big. If there had been a severe chemical leak, and yes there are some you cant see or smell, they all would have dropped dead upon entering the area. The first rule of any firehouse, police station, or response team is personal safety. Rushing in and turning one victim into two isnt helping any situation. I agree that police/fire/EMS/Soldiers/ and even teachers are underpaid. The lawyers comment was referring to those that worked in the towers. Their families got paid millions of dollars. If you watch the video, in the beginning, the guy says 'the republicans want to review it'. Ok? Does that say they are saying no, or instead that before they ink something they want to know what the fuck it is? Democraps have been pushing every bit of crappy legislature they can through without the slightest inclination of what it is. Have you read the health care plan? The version I read was only 1800 pages, maybe 1874, I cant remember, but do you think it was reviewed by all those that coddled the balls of o-bomb-us before jumping into the club of assholes that think they know whats best for everyone in the country, but they dont have to follow obamacare, they have their own that is exempt.
I can see where you would get that and not exactly. The Governors (most states) have that ability with regards to state legislation. I can see problems with the presidential line item veto although at face value it makes damn good sense. You have to look deeper. What we really need is TOTAL transparency in these bills. There is IMO a correct argument that the federal government is interfering with the states right to decide what should be available to its citizens. The States should have their own healthcare policies.
I have a slapstick in your face way of putting things when I do not have the patience to explain fully the my reasoning. I throw some examples out there and if you get my meaning then you do. Salamander took the time to articulate some reasonable arguments against the bill that I wholeheartedly agree with. Look these feel good bills always seem logical at face value but the devil is in the details and the reality of how they play out.
Exactly, that's why I said that it should be analyzed and criticized until it becomes something meaningful and practical. The outrage surrounding the original filibuster of the bill has picked up some steam after FoxNews pundits started bringing it up. Mr. Salamander hasn't had the chance to discuss (or argue) much with me and this is a good occasion to say that I am fascinated with politics. I read Lee Atwater's biography and loved it. This is the situation: 1) The bill was filibustered by the GOP in the Senate 2) Bill is mentioned on hugely popular liberal TV show 3) Other networks pick up the story, therefore legitimizing it 4) Bill and story are mentioned/approved by FoxNews pundits, giving it and aura of acceptance amongst conservative analysts 5) Fighting the bill becomes political suicide This is something to see. I would put this on the same shelf as "Push Polling" by Atwater to defeat McCain and the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act! Try to fight a bill with that name on it! Canadian politics are a little dull. Americans can make anything entertaining that's for sure. But seriously, the responders should get some for of compensation.
This is the situation: 1) The bill was filibustered by the GOP in the Senate (thank god) 2) Bill is mentioned on hugely popular liberal TV show (something smells rotten) 3) Other networks pick up the story, therefore legitimizing it (really legitimizing) 4) Bill and story are mentioned/approved by FoxNews pundits, giving it and aura of acceptance amongst conservative analysts (smoke and mirrors) 5) Fighting the bill becomes political suicide (Now it is all clear to me this was a setup once again the stupid masses have been duped by a collaboration between the left wing politicians as well as the left wing media )
Well this would be more in tune with the Constitution. The federal government only has to protect the rights of the citizens as defined in the constitution and provide protection from a foreign enemy. The states should decide to provide for or not to provide for all else. Ideally you are correct but not in reality. The federal government has been overstepping its boundaries for decades... better yet since the beginning, there had always been the tendency for the federal government to try to grow ever bigger and it just gets worse every new political cycle.
