Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Republicans get ripped a new one on the House floor

Republicans get ripped a new one on the House floor
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 04:13 PM
 
The GOP in its incessant obstructionism has stooped to an all new low and blocked legislation that would provide health care to 9/11 first responders. Anything to prevent another legislative victory for the Obama Administration before the legislative session ends and the mid-term election cycle heats up.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) ripped his GOP colleagues in general and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) in particular a new one on the House floor because of it.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Weiner enraged on House floor - Blogs from CNN.com

Does Rep. Weiner have a legitimate point? Righteous indignation? Or crass political theater?

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 04:19 PM
 
Wait ?

Last time I checked, Obama had a majority in the House and in the Senate.

There could not have possibly been any Democratic dissenters ?
As it stands, this law was voted down in a bipartisan way.

-t
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 04:20 PM
 
Ok, I'll bite.

What else was in that legislation that was blocked? And what were the reasons given? Surely it wasn't just that, so lets be honest here.

From the looks of it, Congress get a new one ripped by Weiner. I always thought that would happen after we through em all in jail . Its about damn time.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 04:32 PM
 

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Wait ?

Last time I checked, Obama had a majority in the House and in the Senate.

There could not have possibly been any Democratic dissenters ?
As it stands, this law was voted down in a bipartisan way.

-t
It was brought up as a "suspension bill" (to prevent amendments) which requires a 2/3 majority.

Seems like there's some theater here on both sides.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Ok, I'll bite.

What else was in that legislation that was blocked? And what were the reasons given? Surely it wasn't just that, so lets be honest here.
Well here's a summary:

2/4/2009--Introduced.

James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to establish within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health the World Trade Center Health Program (WTC program) to provide: (1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; and (2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks. Requires the WTC program administrator to: (1) implement a quality assurance program; (2) establish the WTC Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee; (3) establish the WTC Responders Steering Committee and the WTC Community Program Steering Committee; (4) provide for education and outreach on services under the WTC program; (5) provide for the uniform collection of data related to WTC-related health conditions; (6) conduct research on physical and mental health conditions that may be related to the September 11 terrorist attacks; and (7) extend and expand arrangements with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to provide for the World Trade Center Health Registry. Authorizes the administrator to make grants to the Department to address mental health needs relating to the terrorist attacks.

Amends the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act to: (1) make individuals eligible for compensation under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 for harm as a result of debris removal; and (2) extend the deadline for making a claim for compensation.
Full text is here. From the looks of it the bill doesn't appear to be laden with unrelated items.

The House voted down the bill, which needed a 2/3 majority due to the procedure that brought it to the floor which disallowed amendments. It would have provided $3.2 billion over the next 10 years to fund free health care for 9/11 rescue and recovery workers who have fallen ill from toxins at the World Trade Center site. The bill would have also provided $4.2 billion in compensation over that time frame. Paid for by closing a tax loophole on foreign subsidiaries that do business in the United States. GOP called it a "tax increase" and a "massive new entitlement program".

House rejects bill to aid sick 9/11 responders

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The House voted down the bill, which needed a 2/3 majority due to the procedure that brought it to the floor which disallowed amendments.
Why blame the Repubicans ?

The Democrats chose to ram through Obama Care, hoping that they coudl just amend things later. It was clear from the get go that those amendments would most likely not pass.

In effect, the Democrats opted to sacrifice the amendments just to push through Obama Care. Any failure to pass the laws now is entirely their fault.

If they had done things right, they would have worked out a compromise with Obama Care that didn't require those shenanigans with amendments.

-t
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 04:52 PM
 
Rep. Peter King is a Long Islander. Of course he is not going to do something for the folks in the City.


I didn't read the full bill. Anyone know if there are any ramifications to the insurance industry from this bill? That would be my first guess as to why it was voted down (namely that it would somehow hurt the insurance industry).
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Why blame the Repubicans ?

The Democrats chose to ram through Obama Care, hoping that they coudl just amend things later. It was clear from the get go that those amendments would most likely not pass.

In effect, the Democrats opted to sacrifice the amendments just to push through Obama Care. Any failure to pass the laws now is entirely their fault.

If they had done things right, they would have worked out a compromise with Obama Care that didn't require those shenanigans with amendments.

-t
Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do the topic at hand, it is factually incorrect to state that Healthcare Reform legislation did not incorporate GOP amendments. And at the end of the day, it is essentially Mitt Romney's plan with some tweaks.

But to answer your question, it appears that the GOP is going to get blamed because in their zeal to deny the Obama Administration another accomplishment ... as well as protect the tax loopholes of wealthy corporations ... they have decided to throw the ill 9/11 first responders under the bus to do so.

OAW
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2010, 05:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But to answer your question, it appears that the GOP is going to get blamed because in their zeal to deny the Obama Administration another accomplishment ... as well as protect the tax loopholes of wealthy corporations ... they have decided to throw the ill 9/11 first responders under the bus to do so.

OAW
Exactly, a pox on them and theirs.

9 Freaking years later and still the old, not on my dime mentality, even for those that deserve the help.

Republicans, a pox on you'all.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2010, 04:46 PM
 
And now how about the REAL reasons Republicans were against this, rather than just the emo-driven bullcrap the name of the bill was designed to exploit.

H.R. 847 creates a new entitlement program.

H.R. 847 is paid for with a tax increase on companies located in the United States that are employing American workers.

H.R. 847 is not means tested. An amendment to preclude millionaires from accessing the new health entitlement created by Title I was defeated during the markup in Energy and Commerce Committee.
NIOSH does not have expertise in administering a health care payment program. The current program is a block-grant program, and under H.R. 847, NIOSH will negotiate contracts and approve treatment protocols.

H.R. 847 increases hospital reimbursement rates to 140 percent of Medicare reimbursement rates on average for New York City hospitals while ObamaCare cuts $150 billion in payments to hospitals around the country.

H.R. 847 does not reward hospitals and providers for improving health care. They will be reimbursed based on each service they perform, which will encourage overutilization and increase health care spending.
Currently, several programs receive federal funding for medical monitoring and treatment programs. Those programs include: Fire Department of New York WTC Medical Monitoring Program, New York/New Jersey WTC Consortium, WTC Health Registry, WTC Federal Responder Screening Program, Project COPE, and POPPA (Police Organization Providing Peer Assistance) program.
Limited oversight fails to ensure taxpayer funds are spent properly and effectively. Government health care programs, such as Medicare, have a significant amount of fraud.

H.R. 847 gives too much discretion in the unreviewable authority of the Special Master.

H.R. 847 permits claimants to seek compensation through the VCF even if they have settled their lawsuits against the $1 billion taxpayer-funded World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company.

H.R. 847 includes protections for trial lawyers, including the ability to receive taxpayer-funded compensation for work not directly related to recovery from the VCF. In addition, attorneys who have been compensation under another settlement will have access to settlement funds under the reopened VCF.

H.R. 847 extends the geographic scope of the original September 11 Fund and gives the Special Master discretion to extend it even farther.

H.R. 847 caps the VCF at $8.4 billion, which is an invitation and a guarantee to spend $8.4 billion.

Also, let's convieniently forget the fact that virtually every year since 2002, Congress has passed bills appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars to 9/11 victims and responders. Republicans merely find yet another 10 BILLION dollars and a new entitlement with kickbacks to trail lawyers and such to be excessive ON TOP of all the other funds that have existed and currently exist.

But OF COURSE leave it those only interested in emo-drivel to leave out the facts. And leave it to Democrats to do the oh-so-predictable "Let's try and use a hot button like 9/11 to smear Republicans!" All of this theatre is going to fail Dems- you're going to LOSE BIG in November no matter how many tricks and gimicks you try and foist- too many people are ON TO YOU.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2010, 06:18 PM
 
CRASH HARDDRIVE FTW !

-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 01:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
And now how about the REAL reasons Republicans were against this, rather than just the emo-driven bullcrap the name of the bill was designed to exploit.

H.R. 847 creates a new entitlement program.
Well f*ck. That's like giving veterans health care benefits. We can't have that can we?

Federal money spent on healthcare == entitlements

Screw those firefighters and first responders.


Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 is paid for with a tax increase on companies located in the United States that are employing American workers.
Well f*ck. We can't have a tax increase. Republicans don't believe in tax increases. Republicans know money comes from trees.

Balancing the budget and having to pay for expenses? What the f*ck is that?

Tax cuts goes with increase in spending. Yeah. That's how Republicans balance the budget. See how well it worked under Pres. Reagan, Pres. Bush I, and Pres. Bush II.


Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 is not means tested. An amendment to preclude millionaires from accessing the new health entitlement created by Title I was defeated during the markup in Energy and Commerce Committee.
NIOSH does not have expertise in administering a health care payment program. The current program is a block-grant program, and under H.R. 847, NIOSH will negotiate contracts and approve treatment protocols.
Well f*ck. Not mean tested. Everything needs to be mean tested. I mean what doesn't? Remember that last 100 spending bills? All mean tested. What does that mean? It means it's mean tested. That's what I mean.


Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post

H.R. 847 does not reward hospitals and providers for improving health care. They will be reimbursed based on each service they perform, which will encourage overutilization and increase health care spending.
More money to hospitals from more patients. No, hospitals hate having more business.

Yes, hospitals have stop advertising on google and yellow pages.


It's the government responsibility the improve private hospitals. Hospitals have no incentive to improve health care on it's own.

Less people with health coverage == good
More people with health coverage == bad


Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post

Limited oversight fails to ensure taxpayer funds are spent properly and effectively. Government health care programs, such as Medicare, have a significant amount of fraud.

Limited oversight. Yeah, conservatives complaining about lack of oversight. How quaint.



Seriously? What is this cr*p?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 02:11 AM
 
Way to go Crash! You 'da man!
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
But OF COURSE leave it those only interested in emo-drivel to leave out the facts. And leave it to Democrats to do the oh-so-predictable "Let's try and use a hot button like 9/11 to smear Republicans!"
Haha exactly. This is how you ram through otherwise unpalatable acts. It's called "politics" however - your lame attempt to try and say "leave it to Democrats" is, well, lame.

Up here in Canada, our (Conservative) Prime Minister Stephen Harper has turned this into an art form. He's managed to run a minority government for over four years (which is remarkable in itself), in part by doing exactly this type of thing. He manages to get opposing Leftist parties to vote for his budgets mostly by clever compromise: structuring the proposed Budget based on how the Conservatives want to run government, but then making concessions to the other parties on key hot-button issues. That way, if the other parties vote against it and bring on an election, the Conservatives can turn around and hammer them with accusations of "playing politics" by voting against their own party platform.

Simple and effective.

All of this theatre is going to fail Dems- you're going to LOSE BIG in November no matter how many tricks and gimicks you try and foist- too many people are ON TO YOU.
I wouldn't bet against this - but didn't you guys learn from the last time re: all this guaranteeing a win or loss?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
KeyLimePi
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Baltimore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 10:47 AM
 
Crash's right. The bill was a flop and the Democrats want to blame the absence of better legislation on the Republicans. I disagree.

BTW, I feel bad that the nations Democrats are now heralding Anthony Weiner as their new tough-guy. Besides being pretty unprofessional, it looked like the kind of fit some guy who'd been picked on his whole life would throw when his local deli ran out of his favorite mustard. Toward the end he looked like he was going to cry.

Really good words, spoken at a low volume, generally have more impact that hysterics.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 12:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by KeyLimePi View Post
BTW, I feel bad that the nations Democrats are now heralding Anthony Weiner as their new tough-guy. Besides being pretty unprofessional, it looked like the kind of fit some guy who'd been picked on his whole life would throw when his local deli ran out of his favorite mustard. Toward the end he looked like he was going to cry.
Damn, he's pathetic, and aptly named. I bet his milk money never made it to school.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Seriously? What is this cr*p?
Uhm, this crap was *your* post

-t
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
And now how about the REAL reasons Republicans were against this, rather than just the emo-driven bullcrap the name of the bill was designed to exploit.

H.R. 847 creates a new entitlement program.
Oh yeah. It would be such a tragedy for 9/11 first responders to be "entitled" to have their healthcare expenses covered for the illnesses they now suffer as a result of their actions at Ground Zero.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 is paid for with a tax increase on companies located in the United States that are employing American workers.
Again, the legislation would have closed a tax loophole and prevented foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S. So technically it is a "tax increase" seeing as how the loophole allows them to pay $0 tax now. But the question then becomes should such corporations pay tax on their US earnings like everybody else? Or not? Well as usual ... we see who the GOP favors when it comes to that.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 is not means tested. An amendment to preclude millionaires from accessing the new health entitlement created by Title I was defeated during the markup in Energy and Commerce Committee.
Yeah ... with all those millionaires in the NYPD and FDNY this was bound to be a huge issue.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 increases hospital reimbursement rates to 140 percent of Medicare reimbursement rates on average for New York City hospitals while ObamaCare cuts $150 billion in payments to hospitals around the country.
Well compensating NY hospitals for taking care of 9/11 first responders will never do. Even though 9/11 was an exceptional situation ... having an exception to the rule is totally out of line in this situation.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 does not reward hospitals and providers for improving health care. They will be reimbursed based on each service they perform, which will encourage overutilization and increase health care spending.
The US healthcare system is fundamentally organized around "fee for service" . Your criticism of it is sound, but that's just the way it is and it will take a massive overhaul of the entire system to get away from that. In the meantime, the 9/11 first responders should not be denied the care that they need NOW because the healthcare system in NYC didn't magically abandon "fee for service" overnight.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Limited oversight fails to ensure taxpayer funds are spent properly and effectively. Government health care programs, such as Medicare, have a significant amount of fraud.
As do private healthcare programs. So what else is new? The 9/11 first responders need health care coverage NOW. Deny them because some other program has a certain level of fraud?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 permits claimants to seek compensation through the VCF even if they have settled their lawsuits against the $1 billion taxpayer-funded World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company.
A legitimate criticism. Having said that, people settle suits all the time because they need their medical expenses paid NOW. It doesn't necessarily indicate that they've been made whole or that all of their illnesses contracted from Ground Zero were covered.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 includes protections for trial lawyers, including the ability to receive taxpayer-funded compensation for work not directly related to recovery from the VCF. In addition, attorneys who have been compensation under another settlement will have access to settlement funds under the reopened VCF.
This doesn't even make sense. If an attorney is representing a client to get their medical expenses covered for Ground Zero related illnesses, then why shouldn't they be compensated from available funds designated for that purpose? Sounds like the GOP just doesn't like trial lawyers because they tend to vote Democratic so they'll throw the 9/11 responders under the bus out of political spite to me.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 extends the geographic scope of the original September 11 Fund and gives the Special Master discretion to extend it even farther.
And this is an issue why? If people outside the original geographic area have legitimate 9/11 related health problems then their coverage should be denied because of some arbitrary line on a map?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
H.R. 847 caps the VCF at $8.4 billion, which is an invitation and a guarantee to spend $8.4 billion.
Health care costs money. You either want to cover the 9/11 first responders or you don't. In any event, since when is a spending cap a bad thing?

OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 04:51 PM
 
Uh, OAW. We don't want to get away from "fee for service" because then there would be no "service" for which to buy. You think that doctors need to be forced to work for no fee? Really?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 04:55 PM
 
OAW, without going line by line.

You've refuted none of the criticisms of this bill and your responses amount to: "I know but....9/11 responders!!"

Can you please highlight where any of these criticisms are untrue/not valid?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
OAW, without going line by line.

You've refuted none of the criticisms of this bill and your responses amount to: "I know but....9/11 responders!!"

Can you please highlight where any of these criticisms are untrue/not valid?
If by "refute" you mean show something to be untrue then that was never my intent. Having said that, I think one can surmise by my responses which criticisms I thought were "invalid". Someone may have a valid criticism but that doesn't necessarily mean it outweighs the good in the bill. For instance, the "Fee for service" criticism was particularly irrelevant and a non-issue.

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 06:34 PM
 
Let's just sum it up:

If the Dems wanted to help 9/11 first responders, they could have easily crafted a bill that would have passed with bipartisan votes.

In their typical game, they tried to tag on all kinds of other crap, hoping they could push it through. Of course, the Republicans didn't want toplay that game, so the bill got stuck.

Who's to blame: 150% the Democrats.
They are in charge of the House and Senate, they could get anything done that they agree on among themselves.

Failure to push through a bill like this shows how f*cking hell-bent they are to play politics.

Thanks, Obama, that's change we can believe in

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
And now how about the REAL reasons Republicans were against this, rather than just the emo-driven bullcrap the name of the bill was designed to exploit.

H.R. 847 creates a new entitlement program.

H.R. 847 is paid for with a tax increase on companies located in the United States that are employing American workers.

H.R. 847 is not means tested. An amendment to preclude millionaires from accessing the new health entitlement created by Title I was defeated during the markup in Energy and Commerce Committee.
NIOSH does not have expertise in administering a health care payment program. The current program is a block-grant program, and under H.R. 847, NIOSH will negotiate contracts and approve treatment protocols.

H.R. 847 increases hospital reimbursement rates to 140 percent of Medicare reimbursement rates on average for New York City hospitals while ObamaCare cuts $150 billion in payments to hospitals around the country.

H.R. 847 does not reward hospitals and providers for improving health care. They will be reimbursed based on each service they perform, which will encourage overutilization and increase health care spending.
Currently, several programs receive federal funding for medical monitoring and treatment programs. Those programs include: Fire Department of New York WTC Medical Monitoring Program, New York/New Jersey WTC Consortium, WTC Health Registry, WTC Federal Responder Screening Program, Project COPE, and POPPA (Police Organization Providing Peer Assistance) program.
Limited oversight fails to ensure taxpayer funds are spent properly and effectively. Government health care programs, such as Medicare, have a significant amount of fraud.

H.R. 847 gives too much discretion in the unreviewable authority of the Special Master.

H.R. 847 permits claimants to seek compensation through the VCF even if they have settled their lawsuits against the $1 billion taxpayer-funded World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company.

H.R. 847 includes protections for trial lawyers, including the ability to receive taxpayer-funded compensation for work not directly related to recovery from the VCF. In addition, attorneys who have been compensation under another settlement will have access to settlement funds under the reopened VCF.

H.R. 847 extends the geographic scope of the original September 11 Fund and gives the Special Master discretion to extend it even farther.

H.R. 847 caps the VCF at $8.4 billion, which is an invitation and a guarantee to spend $8.4 billion.

Also, let's convieniently forget the fact that virtually every year since 2002, Congress has passed bills appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars to 9/11 victims and responders. Republicans merely find yet another 10 BILLION dollars and a new entitlement with kickbacks to trail lawyers and such to be excessive ON TOP of all the other funds that have existed and currently exist.

But OF COURSE leave it those only interested in emo-drivel to leave out the facts. And leave it to Democrats to do the oh-so-predictable "Let's try and use a hot button like 9/11 to smear Republicans!" All of this theatre is going to fail Dems- you're going to LOSE BIG in November no matter how many tricks and gimicks you try and foist- too many people are ON TO YOU.
When you can't get your majority to sign-off on your ideal, blame the minority in a dog and pony show of holding 9/11 responders hostage to special interest, pork, entitlements, and fluff. Weiner is just another illustration of the lack of discipline required to play such a shameless game of politics; feigned outrage, the two-thirds vote for approval rather than a simple majority to block GOP amendments, avoiding having take tough votes during an election year, and all.

Not to mention the fact that this entire thing was predicated on James Zadroga, a police detective who died at age 34 with considerable debate as to whether his death is related to Trade Center particulates or prescription drug abuse. Is this where we indict Progressives for being badge-kissers?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Let's just sum it up:

If the Dems wanted to help 9/11 first responders, they could have easily crafted a bill that would have passed with bipartisan votes.

In their typical game, they tried to tag on all kinds of other crap, hoping they could push it through. Of course, the Republicans didn't want toplay that game, so the bill got stuck.

Who's to blame: 150% the Democrats.
They are in charge of the House and Senate, they could get anything done that they agree on among themselves.

Failure to push through a bill like this shows how f*cking hell-bent they are to play politics.

Thanks, Obama, that's change we can believe in

-t
BINGO!
ebuddy
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 12:31 PM
 
I've said this once, and I'm going to say it again. I say this as a person who considers himself a Democrat when asked to put down a party affiliation, but really, I align myself more with Democrats when it comes to social issues, and I align myself more with Republicans when it comes to fiscal issues.

One of the main problems our country has experienced over the past decade is the fact that both Congress and the Presidency have been controlled by the same party, AND the party in control of Congress is only in control by the slimmest of margins. When this happens, there is not much incentive for the parties to really work with each other. The President just becomes a rubber stamp for the laws that Congress passes. Bush only vetoed bills 12 times during his entire presidency, most of them, apparently in the last two years when Democrats controlled Congress.

When the presidency and Congress are controlled by opposite parties, especially when there's more like a 65-35% margin in at least one house of Congress, legislators KNOW that they HAVE to work together and you get more compromise and less grandstanding.

I'm hoping to see the Republicans gain control of at least one chamber of Congress this year, which will force the Republicans to work with the Democrats to get bills more likely to be ratified by Obama, and it will force the Democrats to work with the Republicans to get part of what they want as well. I believe it gives both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans more freedom to vote against their party more often without worrying about being seen as "not a team player."

And, in 2012, if the Republicans get control of the presidency, then for goodness sake give control of Congress back to the Democrats (again, with at least a 65-35% margin). If Obama gets reelected, then leave control of Congress with the Republicans.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man View Post
When the presidency and Congress are controlled by opposite parties, especially when there's more like a 65-35% margin in at least one house of Congress, legislators KNOW that they HAVE to work together and you get more compromise and less grandstanding.
Indeed. The Clinton Administration had a Republican Congress for most of its tenure. Economy was doing well. Unemployment was way down. Double digit raises every year in the IT game. The good ole days.

Alternatively, you could get things done if one party had the Presidency and a super majority in Congress. But it is extraordinarily difficult to get more than 60 Senators in a single party considering the political divisions in this country.

OAW
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Alternatively, you could get things done if one party had the Presidency and a super majority in Congress. But it is extraordinarily difficult to get more than 60 Senators in a single party considering the political divisions in this country.
Oh, God.

I don't think I'd like that at all. If it was EITHER party. But you're right... I don't see it happening any time soon either for the same reasons as you.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Let's just sum it up:

If the Dems wanted to help 9/11 first responders, they could have easily crafted a bill that would have passed with bipartisan votes.

In their typical game, they tried to tag on all kinds of other crap, hoping they could push it through. Of course, the Republicans didn't want toplay that game, so the bill got stuck.

Who's to blame: 150% the Democrats.
They are in charge of the House and Senate, they could get anything done that they agree on among themselves.

Failure to push through a bill like this shows how f*cking hell-bent they are to play politics.

Thanks, Obama, that's change we can believe in

-t

Really?

Republicans would just waste time amending the bill, and then vote against it.

Republican Party
Party of No.
Party of Filibuster.
Party of Do Nothing.


Republicans just wanted to play the same game over and over and over again.

Amend bill with tax cuts. Vote against bill.
Amend bill with tax cuts. Vote against bill.
Rinse and repeat.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 07:57 PM
 


-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 08:12 PM
 
Republicans in congress are ********* corporate whores, who spends money like crazy when they are in power.

Only when Democrats are in power, they want to stop spending.

Even when spending is needed when we are in a recession.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post


-t
Yeah. Enough of Republican Bull Crap.


Republicans filibuster Tax-Cuttting Jobs Bill.

Say What?! Republicans Filibuster Tax-Cutting Jobs Bill | TPMDC
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 08:49 PM
 
Oh, cute, more

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Really?

Republicans would just waste time amending the bill, and then vote against it.
You mean like Democrats? "Waste time amending the bill?" With what, something other than artificial resuscitation? In the interest of saving you time, I've amended your ness.

Republican Party
Party of No, hell no, stop, no way, not on my life, nope, nada, and yes... I'm opposed.

Party of Filibuster... and yet the entire Republican party has probably spoken a third the number of words spoken by Pres. Obama. Democrats - Party of filibuster-proof. Even so, what was the longest filibuster in US history? Republicans - the party of "amendments"; the amendments party. Some ideas need help even when they come from a (D) ya know. There's been a lot of ideas and those of all political persuasion have been working to shape or stop them. You can thank Republicans later. After all, I thank Democrats for giving Republicans some semblance of focus and energy.

Party of Do Nothing other than draft over 130 healthcare reform initiatives, a wealth of tax and energy proposals, jobs and budget proposals, financial reform... I can tell you're as fond of those ideas as the majority in Congress.

Republicans just wanted to play the same game over and over and over again.
Amend bill with tax cuts. Vote against bill.
Amend bill with tax cuts. Vote against bill.
Rinse and repeat.
How're they doing?
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 03:38 PM
 
Republicans, the Do Nothing Party, wants Congress to Do Nothing for 2 months while they take a vacation.

GOP To Introduce Lame-Duck Prohibition Resolution, Citing Browner's Remarks On Energy Bill
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 05:23 PM
 
I wouldn't mind if the entire congress did nothing for two years!
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
I wouldn't mind if the entire congress did nothing for two years!
Winner

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 05:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
I wouldn't mind if the entire congress did nothing for two years!
+1

Bring on the gridlock.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 09:47 AM
 
How many Dems still don't get it? The Dems have a Majority in all houses and with a President in the WH. The only reason any of their tax n spend nonsense doesn't pass is due to Dems, not the Repubs.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
How many Dems still don't get it? The Dems have a Majority in all houses and with a President in the WH. The only reason any of their tax n spend nonsense doesn't pass is due to Dems, not the Repubs.
I'll be charitable and presume that you are not simply being downright disingenuous here. With that said, clearly you are woefully uninformed if you think a "majority" is enough to get things passed in the Senate when the minority is determined to be obstructionist. Perhaps a refresher course in Civics 101 is in order?

OAW
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
I wouldn't mind if the entire congress did nothing for two years!
But if there is no funding for the wars, the department of defense, and border patrols, wouldn't the conservatives be scared sh*tless and barricade themselves in the basement with guns and gold?

Maybe that's a good thing.

Oh NOES. The scary liberals, illegal immigrants, muslims, terrorist, and the gays!

BOO!

Don't come out, it's Planet of the Apes.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'll be charitable and presume that you are not simply being downright disingenuous here. With that said, clearly you are woefully uninformed if you think a "majority" is enough to get things passed in the Senate when the minority is determined to be obstructionist. Perhaps a refresher course in Civics 101 is in order?

OAW
I dunno. I LIVE in DC, work for the Feds, and know how things work in this town. The Dems can't get things passed due to their own stupidity and self interests. They HAVE THE VOTES. The behind the scenes deal making is where the Dems are having issues. The Leftist nutcases want Obama to move far to the left, while the more centrist Dems who want another term in office are screaming to stop the spending and obvious lefty agenda until after the elections.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 11:02 AM
 
It look like Wiener needs to rip Reid a new one. Reid inserted an amendment that strips $12 billion from the food stamp program to help fund the bailout bill.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 02:39 PM
 
Paying off the Union thugs in the NEA and the police is not an emergency. Obvious as a flying mallet.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I dunno. I LIVE in DC, work for the Feds, and know how things work in this town. The Dems can't get things passed due to their own stupidity and self interests. They HAVE THE VOTES. The behind the scenes deal making is where the Dems are having issues. The Leftist nutcases want Obama to move far to the left, while the more centrist Dems who want another term in office are screaming to stop the spending and obvious lefty agenda until after the elections.
Uhhh .... not so much. The Democrats don't have the votes in the Senate to overcome Republican filibusters. Ever since Scott Brown was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts the Democrats don't have 60 votes. Even when they did have 60 votes the fact that there are "Democrats" from very conservative districts (i.e. Ben Nelson) they still didn't really have a filibuster proof majority because very often such individuals vote like Republicans and are DINOs ("Democrats in name only"). My point is that if the Democrats had 60+ seats in the Senate THEN you could say they have the votes. But until then .....

OAW
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:01 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,