So...which party REALLY cares about 9/11 First Responders?

It is the game they all play, they want to be able to bring it up in 2012, but it will be too late, for you know what is to happen in 2012.
 
Threedee said:
How is it that 9 years have gone by, and all of the sudden we have an all-important bill, just as the Dems are on a losing tide?
Click to expand...
shhh.... We're not supposed to notice. Next bill will be "The Republicans Don't Think Puppies Are Cute" bill.
 
No, I must correct you on this one, "The Republicans Kick Puppies" bill. All liberals have been sending in the issues they want addressed in the bill, it is near completion.
 
I sent in that the ALL the Republicans were part of the Michael Vick dog fighting ring and should be banned from dog ownership.
 
Rana said:
It is the game they all play, they want to be able to bring it up in 2012, but it will be too late, for you know what is to happen in 2012.
Click to expand...

it is starting to make sense.....I can understand why the left would think Obama losing his re-election bid was the end of the world......
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Make all the cutesy excuses you feel are necessary to assuage your guilt.

The fact remains that the vote was 57-42...with EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voting to DENY first responders the help they need....
Click to expand...


If wingnuts like Dixie felt guilt they wouldn't be wingnuts. When you live by formula your choices are limited. Conservatives lost their heart and soul some time in the eighties and may never recover.



"For anyone born after 1945, the welfare state and its institutions were not a solution to earlier dilemmas: they were simply the normal conditions of life - and more than a little dull. The baby boomers, entering university in the mid sixties, had only ever known the world of improving life chances, generous medical and educational services, optimistic prospects of a upward social mobility and - perhaps above all - an indefinable but ubiquitous sense of security. The goals of an earlier generation of reformers were no longer of interest to their successors. On the contrary they were increasingly perceived as restrictions upon the self-expression and freedom of the individual." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it is starting to make sense.....I can understand why the left would think Obama losing his re-election bid was the end of the world......
Click to expand...


Well, can you imagine, President Sarah Palin, Vice President Michele B.

or President Huckabee and who ever would be his pick?

or Mitt Romney and Joe Liebermann

I would rather Obama and a Republican ran Congress stay in charge.

I wish we would have some kind of supernatural experience, like a miracle and a genuine statesmen would come out of the woodwork, but that is kind of apocalyptic!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
they have already gotten a full settlement approved by the court.....why do we need another bill?......
Click to expand...

Because as time passed, First Responders' various illnesses have gotten worse and required more extensive medical care than originally thought when "full settlement" was approved.5

But I get it...getting more tax cuts to suffering millionaires barely scraping by is more important than making sure those who bravely rushed into Ground Zero have adequate healthcare as their conditions deteriorate.
 
why are dems so dishonest about this bill? they fucked it up and played politics...they could have brought the bill through regular channels and allowed debate and amendments, however, they stupidly tried to shove this thing through with no debate....

that and that alone is what the republicans voted against, they did not vote agaisnt the 9/11 responders, they voted against the dems playing politics with those people's money and maybe lives

both parties are fucking stupid on this issue
 
Yurt said:
why are dems so dishonest about this bill? they fucked it up and played politics...they could have brought the bill through regular channels and allowed debate and amendments, however, they stupidly tried to shove this thing through with no debate....

that and that alone is what the republicans voted against, they did not vote agaisnt the 9/11 responders, they voted against the dems playing politics with those people's money and maybe lives

both parties are fucking stupid on this issue
Click to expand...

Then why didn't Senate Republicans just come out and give that as the reason they voted no?

Why did they instead make up every other reason under the sun to try and justify their collective NO votes?

Senate Republicans have stated very clearly that making sure the top 2% get their big tax cut for the Holidays was much more important than making sure 1st responders have the healthcare they deserve.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Then why didn't Senate Republicans just come out and give that as the reason they voted no?

Why did they instead make up every other reason under the sun to try and justify their collective NO votes?

Senate Republicans have stated very clearly that making sure the top 2% get their big tax cut for the Holidays was much more important than making sure 1st responders have the healthcare they deserve.
Click to expand...

i believe some have come out and explained their reasons...i read that reason the other day, i forget who said it...it was not the only reason, but it was part of the reason

tell me, why didn't the dems simply bring this bill to the floor through regular rules? then all it would have needed was a simple majority....further, they brought it at a time when most were focused on getting the UB and the tax extension bill done...if the dems really cared, they wouldn't have played these silly procedural games with the bill...the did teh same thing last summer

it was also about getting the UB's out...which many dems held up, perhaps had they quickly accepted the compromise instead of playing politics, this would not have happened....the pubs were stupid on the tax issue, hands down, there simply is no justification for fighting to not let the tax rate expire on those making over a million
 
Yurt said:
why are dems so dishonest about this bill? they fucked it up and played politics...they could have brought the bill through regular channels and allowed debate and amendments, however, they stupidly tried to shove this thing through with no debate....

that and that alone is what the republicans voted against, they did not vote agaisnt the 9/11 responders, they voted against the dems playing politics with those people's money and maybe lives

both parties are fucking stupid on this issue
Click to expand...

Senate Republicans Explain Their Vote Against 9/11 First Responder Health Care

by Ryan Grim

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans, who blocked a bill to provide care for 9/11 first responders suffering health consequences as a result of rushing toward the burning and smoking buildings, said they did so for a variety of reasons.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said he voted against the first responders bill because Republicans had threatened to vote against everything until tax cuts for the rich were extended and a measure to fund the government was passed.

Despite the fact that President Barack Obama had met the GOP demands, Senate Republicans continued to block action in the upper chamber until everything was complete and signed into law.

"I signed a letter saying we need to be focusing on what we're doing right now," Ensign said, explaining his vote to filibuster the bill.

"Plus that was more spending that was not offset," said Ensign, arguing that the program shouldn't be funded without cuts or tax hikes elsewhere.

A GOP aide said the two parties were in negotiations aimed at finding the roughly $7.4 billion that would be needed to fund the program, though time is running out in the 111th Congress.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) also said he opposed moving forward on the bill because he wanted to get to tax cuts and the budget first. "I wanted to get to other items," he said. He then added, upon further reflection, that he had actually been out of town and wasn't around to vote to filibuster the bill. Brownback will become Kansas governor next and, he said, he was busy back home crafting the budget. He is recorded as not having voted.

"We need to get the issue addressed for the firefighters and the 911 victims, and we will," Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said on Fox News, clipped by The Daily Show. "The difference I think with the tax bill is there is a deadline, January first. We have to get this done. Taxes go up on January first."

One GOP Senator, Orrin Hatch of Utah, who voted to continue filibustering the bill, told HuffPost he couldn't remember how he voted on the measure. Hatch, in that respect, seems about as familiar with the bill as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. In a briefing with reporters, Gibbs noted, in his own defense, that he had never been asked about it by the media before."No one's questioning the goals of this legislation - the question is why can't we do it without adding to the deficit? That's why Senator Hatch opposed the bill," a spokeswoman for Hatch said.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) has vowed to support the bill when it comes to the floor again -- assuming that it does -- leaving Democrats to woo moderates such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine.

The New York Daily News, meanwhile, reported that Collins called the Capitol Police on first responders who came to lobby for the bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/senate-republicans-explai_n_798349.html
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Because as time passed, First Responders' various illnesses have gotten worse and required more extensive medical care than originally thought when "full settlement" was approved.5
Click to expand...

really?....it's gotten worse than last month?....

But I get it...getting more tax cuts to suffering millionaires barely scraping by is more important than making sure those who bravely rushed into Ground Zero have adequate healthcare as their conditions deteriorate.
Click to expand...

and having a political talking point that allows liberals to feel superior one last time is certainly more important that actually solving the country's economic problems....especially when you can accomplish it by spending someone else's money you haven't even collected yet........
 
Bfgrn said:
Senate Republicans Explain Their Vote Against 9/11 First Responder Health Care

by Ryan Grim

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans, who blocked a bill to provide care for 9/11 first responders suffering health consequences as a result of rushing toward the burning and smoking buildings, said they did so for a variety of reasons.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said he voted against the first responders bill because Republicans had threatened to vote against everything until tax cuts for the rich were extended and a measure to fund the government was passed.

Despite the fact that President Barack Obama had met the GOP demands, Senate Republicans continued to block action in the upper chamber until everything was complete and signed into law.

"I signed a letter saying we need to be focusing on what we're doing right now," Ensign said, explaining his vote to filibuster the bill.

"Plus that was more spending that was not offset," said Ensign, arguing that the program shouldn't be funded without cuts or tax hikes elsewhere.

A GOP aide said the two parties were in negotiations aimed at finding the roughly $7.4 billion that would be needed to fund the program, though time is running out in the 111th Congress.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) also said he opposed moving forward on the bill because he wanted to get to tax cuts and the budget first. "I wanted to get to other items," he said. He then added, upon further reflection, that he had actually been out of town and wasn't around to vote to filibuster the bill. Brownback will become Kansas governor next and, he said, he was busy back home crafting the budget. He is recorded as not having voted.

"We need to get the issue addressed for the firefighters and the 911 victims, and we will," Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said on Fox News, clipped by The Daily Show. "The difference I think with the tax bill is there is a deadline, January first. We have to get this done. Taxes go up on January first."

One GOP Senator, Orrin Hatch of Utah, who voted to continue filibustering the bill, told HuffPost he couldn't remember how he voted on the measure. Hatch, in that respect, seems about as familiar with the bill as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. In a briefing with reporters, Gibbs noted, in his own defense, that he had never been asked about it by the media before."No one's questioning the goals of this legislation - the question is why can't we do it without adding to the deficit? That's why Senator Hatch opposed the bill," a spokeswoman for Hatch said.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) has vowed to support the bill when it comes to the floor again -- assuming that it does -- leaving Democrats to woo moderates such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine.

The New York Daily News, meanwhile, reported that Collins called the Capitol Police on first responders who came to lobby for the bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/senate-republicans-explai_n_798349.html
Click to expand...

so basically, you're saying there are lots of reasons to vote against this bill?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
really?....it's gotten worse than last month?....



and having a political talking point that allows liberals to feel superior one last time is certainly more important that actually solving the country's economic problems....especially when you can accomplish it by spending someone else's money you haven't even collected yet........
Click to expand...

Feel superior? How about just FEEL? Many of those first responders will be facing a lot of 'last times'...These people gave of themselves for this country, for their countrymen and for the families of the victims of 9/11, now their names will be added to the rolls.

Anyone who supports what Republicans did here proves they are not only a partisan hack, but a disgrace to mankind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top