So there was bi-partisan support against this bill is what you’re saying. I haven’t read the bill but do know it also violated Obama’s “PayGo” deal. It sounds like a good bill, although adding $7 billion to our debt and deficit is horrendous. Why did we pass “PayGo” if we aren’t going to abide by it.

It was a true tirade, wasn’t it? And, as much as I detest the hypocrisy of the Republicans always trying to use the troops and 9/11 for political gain (in the latter case, rather oddly since 9/11 occurred ont ehir watch), whilst treating them so shoddily, so neglectful, so comtemptuously, I really don’t care for Weiner’s style. His hearts is generally in the right place, but his demeanor is too contentious for my tastes.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

The Real Royal King said:
It was a true tirade, wasn’t it? And, as much as I detest the hypocrisy of the Republicans always trying to use the troops and 9/11 for political gain (in the latter case, rather oddly since 9/11 occurred ont ehir watch), whilst treating them so shoddily, so neglectful, so comtemptuously, I really don’t care for Weiner’s style. His hearts is generally in the right place, but his demeanor is too contentious for my tastes.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

King,

I don’t believe a word you write after your blatant lie I caught in from a comment you made last night. It was a blatant lie. You’re no different that FNC.

How did anyone, Republican or Democrat, restrain themselves from getting up, grabbing that little shit and throwing him out one of the windows! That was one of the worst cases of “Little Man Syndrome” I have ever seen!
Sic him Glenn!!! He is ripe!

RRRK-

Frankly I agree. Ever since Weiner started his crusade against the Beckgold line nonsense he’s losy some serious credibility with me.

Good Congressman. He really seems to care . About what I have no idea. ~ Thorton Melon

THE REAL ROYAL KING WROTE:
“What a piker! Man up! Your colleague, Jim Demented, wants to sterilize all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and brown. But not the White ones.”

You’re a liar. DeMint voted yes on amend s607 for HR 1105 which restricted funding to UN population control if it funded coercive abortion and forced sterilization in places such as China. You simply just simply make stuff up don’t you.

“3/05/09 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 607 to H.R. 1105 (Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009)
To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” he voted for this amendment which would restrict such forced abortions and sterilization’s.

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
King, I don’t believe a word you write after your blatant lie I caught in from a comment you made last night. It was a blatant lie. You’re no different that FNC.

That was satire, a Swift-like “Modest Proposal” without the literary flair. Geez. I know Demented never proposed such legislation. It was meant to emphasize the radicalism infecting Republicanism. Demented may be a rightist creep, but even he wouldn’t favor this.

I could as well have said Reid was proposing legislation banning tutti-fruitti ice cream as being homophobic to empahsize the ineffectual nature of Democrats.

Chill out a bit.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

BowenIsland said:
Good Congressman. He really seems to care . About what I have no idea. ~ Thorton Melon

That’s a good one.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

“At the heart of the debate was a procedural maneuver made by Democrats to suspend the rules before consideration of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The move allowed leadership to block potential GOP amendments to the measure (there was worry that Republicans would attach something overtly partisan in hopes that it could pass on the otherwise widely-popular measure). It also meant that the party needed a two-thirds majority vote.”

So, they were paranoid that the Repubs would attach something to it, so, in the end, they screwed themselves? What was going to be attached? (They sure are reactionary! were they worried they would attach Glenn Beck to it?)

“When the final tally was announced, there were 255 representatives for the measure, 159 against.”

11 democrats didn’t vote yes for it. Why? And why is he so mad the the right, and not the 11 he couldn’t get?

“The defeat of the bill, which would have provided free health care to those affected during the 9/11 rescue and recovery, likely means that the court system will have to settle compensation issues.”

Why do they need a special bill now that there is Obamacare?

What was the opposition fro the Repubs? Did they just want it paid for? Why are dems so reluctant to pay for things they want?

Like all libs, Wiener is a LIAR. RRK, Ted, Iris and box of rox are all liars.

The Real Royal King said:
That was satire, a Swift-like “Modest Proposal” without the literary flair. Geez. I know Demented never proposed such legislation.

Yeah sure whatever. I caught you in the lie….now you’re back tracking. Either way, do you want to know who voted against the amendment? I will tell you who voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00081

sarainitaly said:
Why are dems so reluctant to pay for things they want?

Right sara cause Reps are so much better. Or is your memory that short? The totally unfunded wars that Bush started and they fully supported ring a bell?

THE REAL ROYAL KING
WHEN CAUGHT IN A LIE
HE CLAIMS SATIRE

paulmdoro said:
Right sara cause Reps are so much better. Or is your memory that short? The totally unfunded wars that Bush started and they fully supported ring a bell?

I’ve got to agree with you here. Republicans spend money like it’s going out of business as well, just slightly less than dims. I’m a libertarian & conservative but I’m not going to sit here and make excuses for these politicians, regardless of party.

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
THE REAL ROYAL KINGWHEN CAUGHT IN A LIEHE CLAIMS SATIRE

A lie requires the formation of intent. One doesn’t accidentally lie. You have not been given license to presume my intent. Shame on you for doing so! It doesn’t seem compatible with a libertarian mindset.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
I’ve got to agree with you here. Republicans spend money like it’s going out of business as well, just slightly less than dims. I’m a libertarian & conservative but I’m not going to sit here and make excuses for these politicians, regardless of party.

Yeah it’s a pet peeve of mine, when someone acts like only one party does something that both are equally guilty of.

The Real Royal King said:
A lie requires the formation of intent. One doesn’t accidentally lie. You have not been given license to presume my intent. Shame on you for doing so! It doesn’t seem compatible with a libertarian mindset.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

Yeah whatever…..I caught you i a lie. And from what you’re saying, I can lie all I want, but if caught I just say…it was satire.

THE REAL ROYAL KING
WHEN CAUGHT IN A LIE
HE CLAIMS SATIRE

paulmdoro said:
Right sara cause Reps are so much better. Or is your memory that short? The totally unfunded wars that Bush started and they fully supported ring a bell?

Or, indeed, the first Bail-Out/Stimulus, which I actually supported.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
Yeah whatever…..I caught you i a lie. And from what you’re saying, I can lie all I want, but if caught I just say…it was satire. THE REAL ROYAL KINGWHEN CAUGHT IN A LIEHE CLAIMS SATIRE

As long as you are enjoying being insufferable and sanctimonious, I shall not further interfere with your enjoyment.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

sarainitaly said:
So, they were paranoid that the Repubs would attach something to it, so, in the end, they screwed themselves? What was going to be attached?

They were concerned about Senate republicans attaching an amendment that would have banned illegal immigrant first responders who became sick at the World Trade Center from being covered by the bill.

sarainitaly said:
11 democrats didn’t vote yes for it. Why? And why is he so mad the the right, and not the 11 he couldn’t get?

While I understand your point, those 11 democrats would not have made up the difference needed. Instead, he chose to go after the larger group of opponents. And to be honest, Weiner has certainly indicated that he has an ax to grind. However, living in New York City, I’m pretty pissed off about this outcome as well.

sarainitaly said:
Why do they need a special bill now that there is Obamacare?

Because this was a way to make good to the heroes who became sick while trying to rescue people during 9/11. Right now, many of those who became sick are in the middle of expensive and extremely long court cases, all the while their health continues to deteriorate.

sarainitaly said:
Why are dems so reluctant to pay for things they want?

I would hope that all Americans would want to do right for the heroes of 9/11.

Stephen Hogan wrote:
“They were concerned about Senate republicans attaching an amendment that would have banned illegal immigrant first responders who became sick at the World Trade Center from being covered by the bill.”

-Where is your proof?

“I would hope that all Americans would want to do right for the heroes of 9/11.”

-Can’t we do the right thing by these heros, and follow Obama’s “PayGo?” Surely there is $7 billion we can cut from somewhere in order to pay for this.

Stephen Hogan said:
sarainitaly said:
Why are dems so reluctant to pay for things they want?
I would hope that all Americans would want to do right for the heroes of 9/11.

Indeed. as such things go, we are not taking about signficant sums of money. I find it rather crass that this issue was even raised.

Stephen Hogan said:
sarainitaly said:
So, they were paranoid that the Repubs would attach something to it, so, in the end, they screwed themselves? What was going to be attached?
They were concerned about Senate republicans attaching an amendment that would have banned illegal immigrant first responders who became sick at the World Trade Center from being covered by the bill.

This, to me, signifies everything that is wrong about our immigration debate. Status here makes no difference. What could possibly be more American than what these brave men and women did? Isn’t this exactly the type of immigrant we ought to be embracing?

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

“Like all libs, Wiener is a LIAR. RRK, Ted, Iris and box of rox are all liars.”

this is what we call a “low information poster.’

“I would hope that all Americans would want to do right for the heroes of 9/11.”

No. They’d rather throw a cheap magnet or bumper sticker on their automobile declaring “Never Forget” or “We Will Not Forget” on their way home to watch Reality TV.

The Real Royal King (That lies than claims satire when busted) wrote:
“Indeed. as such things go, we are not taking about signficant sums of money. I find it rather crass that this issue was even raised.”

Are you serious? You believe the $7 billion is not significant? That’s number is larger than most state budget deficits. It is precisely that belief, and way of thinking by both democrats and republicans, is how we got to $14 trillion in debt, and $1.4 trillion spending deficit. If it’s not that “significant” than take it from some where else.

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
Where is your proof?

Here: “Democrats chose that route because they feared a traditional floor vote would lead to an amendment explicitly barring any illegal immigrants from receiving care under the program. ”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395620263537934.html

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
Can’t we do the right thing by these heros, and follow Obama’s “PayGo?” Surely there is $7 billion we can cut from somewhere in order to pay for this.

I think they might be a bit more concerned about getting their mesothelioma and other life threatening illnesses they contracted while saving people treated than Obama’s PayGo.

The money, by the way, was going to come from speculated savings that would come from closing a tax loop-hole that benefits major corporations.

“from speculated savings”

Yeah precisely my point. “Speculated savings” is not knowing where $7 billion dollars is going to come from. Maybe we could have cut $7 billion from foreign aid, or the DOD or entitlement programs. Congress is just great at “speculating” about savings when they want to pass a bill.

The Real Royal King said: I know Demented never proposed such legislation.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.

What is it with progressives and projection? It’s like they can’t help it.

Here’s about $9 billion, if we can find it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10774002

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
The Real Royal King (That lies than claims satire when busted) wrote:“Indeed. as such things go, we are not taking about signficant sums of money. I find it rather crass that this issue was even raised.” Are you serious? You believe the $7 billion is not significant? That’s number is larger than most state budget deficits. It is precisely that belief, and way of thinking by both democrats and republicans, is how we got to $14 trillion in debt, and $1.4 trillion spending deficit. If it’s not that “significant” than take it from some where else.

Didn’t you just say that money wouldn’t be all that hard to find? Yes, you did:

“Surely there is $7 billion we can cut from somewhere in order to pay for this.”

Things change quickly.

But, you are right. These brave men and women deserve nothing.

It should please you immensely they are getting nothing.

As for me, if that is Libertarianism, I want nothing to do with it.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER GO HALF-WAY.

Stephen Hogan said:
They were concerned about Senate republicans attaching an amendment that would have banned illegal immigrant first responders who became sick at the World Trade Center from being covered by the bill.

Oh, like when they were afraid Shirley Sherrod was going to be on Glenn Back. And like how they’re afraid that the big bad companies who built the internet are going to take it over.

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
“from speculated savings”

Yeah precisely my point. “Speculated savings” is not knowing where $7 billion dollars is going to come from.

Well, I say ‘speculated’ in the same sense that a budget is the speculated revenue and expenditure over the course of the next year.

Anthony Weiner did just fine in this video and I wish more Democrats were as aggressive. The rightwingnuts here who criticize him or complain about him are the same hypocrites who think town halls where tea partiers shout down congressmen are just fine. In your face and fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you don’t like it.

Pablo said:
Oh, like when they were afraid Shirley Sherrod was going to be on Glenn Back. And like how they’re afraid that the big bad companies who built the internet are going to take it over.

I’m not sure how those things have anything to do with this. Democrats in Congress were not involved in the Sherrod firings. Also, the web was created in Britain and built by the billions of contributions of people like you and me. It was not just built by tele-com companies. The net neutrality argument has nothing to do with ‘taking the internet over’. It’s more about tele-com companies restricting bandwidth and access to websites based on their sole discretion.

Stephen Hogan said:
Here: “Democrats chose that route because they feared a traditional floor vote would lead to an amendment explicitly barring any illegal immigrants from receiving care under the program. ”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395620263537934.html

Who wanted to tack it on? Was this a real threat? How many illegals would be included in the bill?

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
You believe the $7 billion is not significant? That’s number is larger than most state budget deficits. It is precisely that belief, and way of thinking by both democrats and republicans, is how we got to $14 trillion in debt, and $1.4 trillion spending deficit. If it’s not that “significant” than take it from some where else.

I agree. If it is not significant, and so important, then pay for it.

paulmdoro said:
Right sara cause Reps are so much better. Or is your memory that short? The totally unfunded wars that Bush started and they fully supported ring a bell?

We have seen numerous bills and issues lately that the Dems are accusing Repubs of not supporting, when the Repubs are saying *pay for it, and we’ll vote for it*. It was the 8 years of spending and now the drastic spending under Obama that got us where we are. Finally people are saying, no more – pay for it! So, do you just want to continue down the road of spend spend spend?

And while many like to keep pointing the finger at Bush, he is no longer Pres, and the Right no longer controls Congress, so, that is why I said, why do Dems not want to pay for anything. As someone who did not support the wars, or Bush, yes, I remember. But unlike some, I don’t live in the past. Again, not a republican. I am an Indy. I am not happy with any of them.

And when people like Weiner and Grayson get all shrill and scream that Repubs want to kill people, when the Repubs are saying PAY FOR IT, I find that dishonest. I want to know why some Dems didn’t support it. I want to know who was going to attach the rider. I want to know how they proposed to pay for it, and why the dems don’t want to pay for it, if it is so important to them. Or why they just didn’t go for a simple majority vote. It would have passed. Seems like a huge dramatic scene on Weiners part, for something that could have easily passed had they just gone for a straight vote.

You’re an independent? Could have fooled me. I have seen a lot of Obama/Dems bashing and pretty much no Republican bashing. Or do you just direct your ire to whichever party is in the White House?

I don’t want to continue down the road of spend spend spend, and yes Bush is no longer president and the blame Bush game is tired, but some people are guilty of selective or short memories.

King later responded during a solo interview on Fox News.

“Anthony can rant and rave all he wants on the House floor, he did not answer one point that I made last night,” he said. “I’ve done everything I possibly can. The fact is this should not be a partisan issue, I have been very, very critical of the Republican Party.

“The bottom line is the Democrats control the House and they pulled a procedural gimmick starting ten days ago, and they lost the nerve to bring it to the floor on a real vote,” he added.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/111859-rep-weiner-lashes-out-at-gop-in-fiery-floor-speech

that’s kind of what it sounded like to me….

King knows all about ranting and raving.

paulmdoro said:
“I would hope that all Americans would want to do right for the heroes of 9/11.” No. They’d rather throw a cheap magnet or bumper sticker on their automobile declaring “Never Forget” or “We Will Not Forget” on their way home to watch Reality TV.

That’s a ridiculous thing to say unless of course you’re a truther.

sarainitaly said:
Who wanted to tack it on? Was this a real threat? How many illegals would be included in the bill?

I can’t recall any Republican Senators mentioning this, in all honesty. I think it was more of a reasonable speculation, unless someone is aware of an actual threat. The only illegals this bill would have covered were the ones that also got sick as first responders.

sarainitaly said:
Seems like a huge dramatic scene on Weiners part, for something that could have easily passed had they just gone for a straight vote.

You have to understand that a large number of people this bill would have covered are his constituents.

sarainitaly said:
I want to know how they proposed to pay for it

They were going to close a tax loophole that benefits corporations that move their headquarters to ‘tax havens’.

timzank said:
That’s a ridiculous thing to say unless of course you’re a truther.

Of course I’m not a truther. Why is it ridiculous?

Stephen Hogan said:
I can’t recall any Republican Senators mentioning this, in all honesty.

That’s what it has to do with the other things I mentioned. It’s a hamfisted, overbearing reaction to problems that don’t exist.

Pablo said:
That’s what it has to do with the other things I mentioned. It’s a hamfisted, overbearing reaction to problems that don’t exist.

I am only qualifying for my knowledge on the circumstances. There very well could have been an actual threat, I am just not aware of any.

And, in all honesty, I think that Democrats are reasonable to expect such an amendment from Republicans, especially considering how hot the topic of illegal immigration is right now.

Stephen Hogan said:
on the circumstances.

Of course I meant ‘of the circumstances’. My apologies to any grammar nazis out there :)

Stephen Hogan said:
You have to understand that a large number of people this bill would have covered are his constituents.

Which is weird he wouldn’t just do a straight vote – I haven’t found anything yet about a real threat of an exclusion for illegals. And even if there was, I wonder how many are included, and if it was worth throwing the vote over. If they couldn’t have addressed that issue next.

The bill would have provided up to $3.2 billion to cover the medical treatment of people sickened by trade center dust and an additional $4.2 billion for a new fund that would have compensated them for their suffering and lost wages.

Still reading up on this, but I definitely support first responders getting medical help. I just think it is vital that things are paid for. We can’t just keep spending and spending.

How many millions were spent on those stupid Recovery stimulus signs. The $200M that went to Murtha’s airport… How much did Pelosi spend just on booze on her plane, or did Congress spend on water and lunches? How about all the expenses they have racked up with their private flights, with family in tow. Fraud alone in Haiti is $2B. Looking at the list below, I find it hard to believe they can’t find the money to pay for first responders. Obama donated $100M to Haiti immediately. Why didn’t he donate money to the first responders?
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/08/50-examples-of-government-waste/

I still don’t know why 11 Dems didn’t support it…

“They were going to close a tax loophole that benefits corporations that move their headquarters to ‘tax havens’.” would that have any affect on jobs?

And, in all honesty, I think that Democrats are reasonable to expect such an amendment from Republicans, especially considering how hot the topic of illegal immigration is right now.

are illegal immigrants first responders?

sarainitaly said:
How many millions were spent on those stupid Recovery stimulus signs. The $200M that went to Murtha’s airport… How much did Pelosi spend just on booze on her plane, or did Congress spend on water and lunches? How about all the expenses they have racked up with their private flights, with family in tow. Fraud alone in Haiti is $2B. Looking at the list below, I find it hard to believe they can’t find the money to pay for first responders. Obama donated $100M to Haiti immediately. Why didn’t he donate money to the first responders?
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/08/50-examples-of-government-waste/

More independence sara? Of course only Dems like Murtha and Pelosi are guilty of wasting money. Reps never are.

sarainitaly said:
are illegal immigrants first responders?

Some first responders were illegal immigrant, yes.

Rep. Anthony Weiner is nothing but a shameless self-promoter. He was acting like a bitter child.

sarainitaly said:
Which is weird he wouldn’t just do a straight vote – I haven’t found anything yet about a real threat of an exclusion for illegals.

I’m not sure he really had too much of a say on the matter. He really isn’t high up there on seniority. By the way, I’m still looking for an actual reported threat, as well. Let me know if you find anything and I’ll do the same.

sarainitaly said:
We can’t just keep spending and spending.

I understand that, but this seems like a pretty good reason to spend money. Thanks for the article. There are a number contained therein that I agree with, but I largely disapprove of the Heritage Foundation. They frequently cite their own opinion articles and tend to be a bit of an echo chamber.

sarainitaly said:
would that have any affect on jobs?

Maybe, but it depends on how many of those jobs have been outsourced to other countries and whether or not executives are willing to lose a bit of their salaries.

notsofast said:
Rep. Anthony Weiner is nothing but a shameless self-promoter. He was acting like a bitter child.

To be fair, many of the people that would have benefited from his bill are his constituents. I think his rage is largely justified.

Mayor Bloom berg’s take on this:

At a press conference this morning, Mayor Michael Bloomberg blasted House Democrats for not bringing the 9/11 health care and compensation act up for a traditional, simple-majority vote.

“It’s an outrage,” he said, before The Observer could finish the question. “They should bring it up. A majority of people would vote for this bill and it would pass.”

Democrats have said they’ll bring the $7.4 billion bill to the floor today under the House’s suspension calendar, which could keep unsupportive Republicans from poisoning the bill with unpopular amendments–like, say, ones on abortion and immigration. But it also requires a 2/3 vote for passage.

“They will not get that and they know that. So this is a way to avoid having to make a tough decision,” Bloomberg said. “And I know it’s a tough vote for some people. Hey, I get tough votes every day. I get tough votes with you [the press] every day where you want to know where I stand. I don’t have a lot of sympathy. They should bring this and vote up or down on any amendments. And vote up or down on the bill. And go on the record, and that incidentally, is what the leadership should force.”

Stephen Hogan said:
Some first responders were illegal immigrant, yes.

well then they should be cared for.

ok, i have to get back to work, my brother got back to me with feedback… no more googling. but i will check back to see if you found anything, and i will check more later.

Oh, paulmdoro – i forgot about the strippers the repubs expensed. (i said Dems because they are the ones livid that they didn’t pass this, and other things that aren’t paid for, therefore i listed things they WASTE money on that could have been used to fund their programs they so desperately want.

Methinks they lost some of the dems votes because they wanted no part of the immigration reform that was included in the bill….and we were worried about the repubs making an amendment to the bill…mmm…mmm…mmm

I am glad that Mr. Weiner is a rep from the state of New York. He fits in quite nicely there. Currently he is in a state of psychosis.

MR KOTTER! MR KOTTER! OO OOO OOO OOO

The Real Royal King said:
Didn’t you just say that money wouldn’t be all that hard to find? Yes, you did:

“Surely there is $7 billion we can cut from somewhere in order to pay for this.”

Things change quickly.

But, you are right. These brave men and women deserve nothing.

It should please you immensely they are getting nothing.

As for me, if that is Libertarianism, I want nothing to do with it.

What I said liar-in-chief, is that we should be able to cut the money from somewhere else, not just tack it onto our national debt/ or unprecedented $1.4 trillion deficit. Don’t try more of your lies with me. I caught you once, and I’ll catch your lies again.

Stephen Hogan said:
Some first responders were illegal immigrant, yes.

Actually that’s largely wrong. While I’m sure one or two people have some false ID, most first responders to include EMTs, police and fire fighters go through extensive background checks. More lies.

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
Actually that’s largely wrong. While I’m sure one or two people have some false ID, most first responders to include EMTs, police and fire fighters go through extensive background checks. More lies.

How do you know for sure?

And I don’t think either party is serious about erasing the deficit, no matter what they say.

Tony was 100% correct. The repubs voted no to helping people who are dying. Good job you useless fucks. Damn you all to Hell.

And the Oscar goes to An’tny Weiner , who thanks his supportive better half , Huma Weiner .

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
Actually that’s largely wrong. While I’m sure one or two people have some false ID, most first responders to include EMTs, police and fire fighters go through extensive background checks. More lies.

Actually, it’s largely correct. They make up a small percentage, but they were there. And it’s more than ‘one to two’ people.

Your Republiscum in action!!! Once more. Continuing. People who are not even worth moral judgment.

The Real Royal King said:
As for me, if that is Libertarianism, I want nothing to do with it.

Of course you prefer a system that allows you to spend other people’s money. Unfortunately those other people are now the Chinese who will soon stop lending money to bad credit risks (i.e. Democrat politicians).

It sounds like a lot of posters are missing the entire point of his rant.

The republicans wanted the ability to attach amendments to the legislation that were contentious because it WOULD HAVE KILLED THE ENTIRE BILL. This would allow them an out from having to vote against it because NOBODY WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR IT with the amendments attached that they are proposing.

THEY ARE COWARDS! Plain and simple. Instead of voting “yea” or “nea” on whether to give the responders the funds they need to continue covering the medical issues they’ve encountered, the Republicans wanted to attach hot-button amendements that had to do with abortion and illegal immigration, and nothing to do with providing the medical funds that these HEROES DESPERATELY NEED!

I’m sure the typical MO will be spewed fourth from the right. Attack me personally, deflect and talk about another issue or simply provide links to articles that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. They’ve taught you well and that is exactly what they are doing to this legislation.

They can’t let the Democrats pass this bill, because that would mean that THEY’RE DOING SOMETHING GOOD THAT REPUBLICANS CAN’T TAKE CREDIT FOR.

Plain and simple, the republicans care more about keeping their jobs than they do about governing “for the people”.

and any of you tin-hat wearing Beck-lovers that still think Goldline’s on the up-and-up. YOU’RE THE ONLY ONES BEING FOOLED.

I personally would like Weiner’s investigations to stop because the people who are listening to Beck and the other FOX propagandists deserve to be ripped off by the same people you devote yourselves too, that’s the only way you’re going to learn a damn thing.

The fact that this bill failed, that politicians can’t get passed idiotic partisan egos to assist those who were harmed as a result of helping the nation during one of its worst times shows undoubtedly that they do not actually care about the american people. It’s all about opposing the other side and making yourself look good so that they can get elected again.

SpineCrusher said:
the Republicans wanted to attach hot-button amendements that had to do with abortion and illegal immigration, and nothing to do with providing the medical funds that these

Do you have any info/links/names/facts to support this?

I have heard that they were worried Repubs would attach a provision to not cover illegals, but nothing about abortion. And nothing about any actual amendments – just fearful of the idea it might happen.

Also, if there were a very small percentage of illegal immigrants that managed to fake their way into a First Responder job, they should be covered, however, the number must be so small that it hardly seems worthy to hold up the entire bill for a handful of illegal immigrants. I think the Congress water bottle bill allowance could probably cover them.

I think Sarah in Italy should go before one of our DEATH PANELS….

Dona Barone said:
I think Sarah in Italy should go before one of our DEATH PANELS….

Whoa. Uncalled for, Dona.

The part I like best is that he was so flustered, he basically repeated the same short paragraph with accompanying gestures about three times.

Maybe he could’ve said more – and all “the gentlemen” would’ve been more receptive too – if he’d have calmed the fuck down.

Because it is a good bill. It deserved better representation than that.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-847

The people doing the job at the WTC did it for love of country and their fellow man and woman. They volunteered . They did not know they were going to get so very sick. If they did, they would have done it anyway. What have any of you done for your country? Just asking.

While people in here are haggling over $7 Billion dollars for First Responders at 9/11…

“We estimate, using Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Tax projections, that maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will directly reduce revenues by about $690 billion over the next 10 years.* But the true cost of those tax cuts is actually a bit bigger than that.

The cost of those tax cuts is going to go straight onto our national credit card unless we raise taxes from everyone else to pay for the $690 billion in tax breaks for the rich or we find $690 billion in spending cuts. And that means increased interest payments on the debt. When we add in the costs of additional debt service, the true price of maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy jumps by almost $140 billion.** In total, keeping those cuts for the rich will cost almost $830 billion over the next 10 years.”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

I would like for ANY conservative/libertarian/independent/tea partyer/etc. to explain to me why America “can’t afford” or “needs to find someway to pay for” $7 billion for the heroes of 9/11, but CAN AFFORD $830 BILLION in tax cuts for Paris Hilton, Lebron James and the richest 2% of all citizens?

I want to see just what level of shame some here have reduced themselves to.

–Cobra

Bootleghaircut said:
RRRK- Frankly I agree. Ever since Weiner started his crusade against the Beckgold line nonsense he’s losy some serious credibility with me.

Welcome into the light.

It’s more than that; Weiner simply has bad ideas. He is convinced that raising taxes is the solution to every problem and to fund every program in and by government.

pyrope said:
It’s more than that; Weiner simply has bad ideas. He is convinced that raising taxes is the solution to every problem and to fund every program in and by government.

Raising taxes will help lower the Budget deficit since we ARE engaged in TWO Wars, remember?

When the tax rate on the top 5% went to 39% under Clinton, low and behold, America had a BALANCE BUDGET …and a projected BUDGET SURPLUS.

So let me ask you pyrope…are you for Budget SURPLUSES or Budget DEFICITS?

–Cobra

Dona Barone said:
I think Sarah in Italy should go before one of our DEATH PANELS….

well that was very mature of you, Dona.

Thanks Hogan.

Wait a minute!!! Why aren’t the first responders covered under their insurance?

It’s Little Anthony Weiner putting a show on for his Radical-Left audience at HuffPo & msnbc!
————————————————

But, is everyone abuzz about the ROYAL WEDDING?

You remember, THE HYPOCRITE “for-the-people” DEMOCRATS are holding the ROYAL WEDDING today!…& NONE of the food, flowers, etc. were purchased locally, all imported from their RULING CLASS in Boston & NY!!

SHOWS HOW THE DEMOCRAT ‘RULING CLASS’ IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ‘DEPENDENT-CLASS’ THEY CREATE THROUGH THEIR POLICIES – IN ORDER TO REMAIN, OF COURSE…..THE RULING CLASS!

THE DEMOCRATIC MONARCHY CELEBRATES THE ROYAL WEDDING – with their sycophant media, and vacuous supporters!!!!

Dave Richards said:
Wait a minute!!! Why aren’t the first responders covered under their insurance?

i’m not sure. But looking at the bill, from what I understand, more than $4B was for suffering and loss of wages, so nothing to do with actual healthcare. And the $3.2B is for a government healthcare program, and “possible healthcare needs” down the road.

“Title I of H.R. 847 creates a mandatory World Trade Center Health Program (WTC program) within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The WTC program will 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.

The funding would be a new entitlement over the next 10 years for 90 percent of the costs of operating the new program. The remaining 10 percent of the costs of the program would be the responsibility of New York City for fiscal years 2011 to 2018.

The pay-for developed by the Majority did not generate enough revenue to pay for the program for ten years. ”

There’s also something in there about those who accept these funds are excluded from a lawsuit, or vice versa. I am confused.

From reading this: http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr847, it sounds like it is a $3.2B program (clinic? organization?) they want to create, to monitor the health of, not actual monies going to care for the responders, but a new govt. program. And the $4.2B is for suffering and loss of wages, again, not health care related.

The radio interview with Weiner, King and Hannity, in my opinion, proved Weiner is making a hysterical scene for purely political reasons.

sarainitaly said:
well that was very mature of you, Dona.

Thanks Hogan.

Please, call me Stephen. I’m not too fond of the formal last name thing. :)

sarainitaly said:
The radio interview with Weiner, King and Hannity, in my opinion, proved Weiner is making a hysterical scene for purely political reasons.

Do you have a link to that? I haven’t heard that interview and, being a New Yorker, I’m trying to find out as much info on this as possible.

here ya be, stephen
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/30/audio-hannity-and-anthony-weiner-scream-at-each-other-for-10-minutes/

Sarainitaly,

Is John McNamara also making a hysterical scene for purely political reasons?

“Hello all and thank you for the great job on the post, Sherman. This is John McNamara. Yes, we took it to Washington DC yesterday, we invited over 800 media outlets with probably 3 showing up. Our (national) priorities are following Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan in this day and age. I went to Washington with other workers and volunteers from 9/11, and although I do have cancer, I felt like I was one of the lucky ones compared to some of the nightmares I heard. Charlie Geis is an EMT was there for the collapse; burned and yet came back to help, lost his house because he is so in debt due to his illness, and on over 20 meds a day. Another sad story was that of Linda Rooney who lost her brother to leukemia; he worked as a carpenter and logged over 200 hours at the site. He left behind three children and a wife, and when he died his health insurance died along with him.

John McNamara, engine 234, FDNY.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sherman-yellen/betrayed-and-ignored-the-_b_88807.html

Dave Richards said:
Wait a minute!!! Why aren’t the first responders covered under their insurance?

Sarainitaly: “I’m not sure.”

Sara, did you pay any attention at ALL to the great healthcare debates last year? You didn’t hear the part about how insurance companies pick and choose who to cover, what to cover and how much to cover? Didn’t you remember the part about how private insurance companies can simply deny coverage, or terminate policies if the policy holder becomes chronically ill–like Charlie Weis the EMT on 20 meds a day?
Remember the term “rescission?”

“A report released this week was shocking: Nearly 70 percent of 9/11 first responders have debilitating respiratory illnesses.

“Every fireman, cop that went down there, nobody thought about your own safety,” Ryan said. “That’s not what we do. I’m just asking for a little help. A little help getting by every day.”

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2409716&page=1

Are any of the people interviewed in that story “making a hysterical scene for purely political reasons?”

And Sara, while we’re at it…do you support MAINTAINING the Bush Tax Cuts for the richest 2% of all Americans at a cost of $830 Billion?

–Cobra

Cobra said:
Cobra says:
July 31, 2010 at 1:19 pm  

Because if Weiner and Dems wanted this passed, they would have done a straight vote! Did you not HEAR his radio interview with Hannity? he would never give a straight answer why they just didn’t put it through with the 218 votes required. He is getting all hysterical, screaming and throwing temper tantrums, when it could have passed with Democrat support. So, in other words, he threw a big fit that was totally unnecessary. If they want it passed, they could have passed it. End of story.

And as I said above, $4.2B of the money isn’t for healthcare. It is for wages lost, so that has nothing to do with them receiving healthcare. And the $3.2B is for those that are sick, and those who might get sick. AND as I said above, it is for a government program, not reimbursements or payments for healthcare to those affected. I would think it would be much more effective to have people who are sick get their treatment, and then get reimbursed by the govt, then to set up a whole new program/clinic(?). It sounds like a lot of wasteful spending.

Spare me the drama Cobra, as I said, I am not against them getting care, I am against the BS hysterics by Weiner. I also question the $4.2B in the bill, that has everyone screaming that republicans want people to die, when it isn’t for healthcare at all.

“Government spending in recent months has only fueled their anger. Many are upset that so many dollars are being spent on failed banks and automakers while sick workers who responded to America’s worst attack in history are still fighting for medical care.

Two funds established in the wake of 9/11 have come to epitomize the responders’ frustration. Sick workers say the Victim’s Compensation Fund failed to adequately cover them and the initial deadline to enroll expired in 2003 – well before some of the most serious diseases began to manifest themselves. Meanwhile the Captive Insurance Fund, set up to reimburse injured World Trade center workers, has consistently fought claims by ill first responders.”

Hmm, kind of my point I made previously… And it sounds like the Govt. has done a bang up job handling their two programs they have already set up/funded…..

“Gauging the health effects of the World Trade Center exposure is an enormous task and an inexact science. About 43,000 have been physically screened for 9/11-related health issues in New York. Twenty-eight thousand are in the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program and 15,000 are enrolled at a sister program at the FDNY. Meanwhile, the WTC Health Registry has tracked the health effects of 71,000 workers, volunteers and residents though surveys.

While the WTC program provides comprehensive treatment for eligible participants, it doesn’t cover every medical condition that a responder develops. Ailing workers must have a condition that is on the list outlined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.”

Sounds like your anger is misdirected.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/10/national/main5300512.shtml

Currently, 9/11 responders receive free health care, but funding is discretionary from year to year. Under the proposed bill funding would be permanent and responders would receive health care for life.

The Obama administration has not supported the bill thus far, proposing instead that the funding be year to year. But Feal is now optimistic that the bill will eventually make it to the president’s desk, possibly even by Sept. 11, the ninth anniversary of the attacks.

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2010-03-25/Front_Page/Health_care_bill_for_911_responders_advances.html

We are asking that all Americans please take a moment out of their day to please call Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services . She has stated that she has not read HR 847 and will not support it.
…

The abrupt revelation came after the Daily News reported New York lawmakers were shocked Wednesday when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the administration does not support mandatory funding for the $11 billion permanent treatment plan.

http://visibility911.com/ford/?p=848

Interesting….

Perhaps I just answered my own question, and have discovered the reason why the Democrats didn’t make this a straight vote, and why Weiner is getting all hysterical, pointing blame at Republicans, when it is not their fault. The Obama administration doesn’t support it…

Oh, and as I was reading cbs article, this in particular:

But what medical professionals classify as “many years” is right now for some first responders. John McNamara was 40 when he was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer – five years after the terrorist attack.

“You just don’t find a cancer with that kind of aggression in that young of a person,” Jennifer McNamara said. “It’s less than 10 years down the road and there are already a lot of people dead. Forget about first being diagnosed, there are a lot of people who are dead.”

I think about my 40 year old friend with stage 4 inflammatory breast cancer, my 30 yr. old sister in law with breast cancer, my father and father in law both with prostate cancer, my moms best friend who died at 33 of leukemia, my stepmoms best friend who died of brain cancer, my three grandparents who died of cancer, my other from Alzheimer, my aunt at 50, and uncle at 55 from hypertension related illnesses, my aunt at 35 from an aneurysm, my brother in law who had a tumor the size of an orange in his brain at 44, and my ex-boyfriend who died at 28 from leukemia…. None of them having lived in NY.

Oh, and I just read this:

Robert Grossman’s father, Stephen, drew a parallel with the $3bn the federal government spent this year on buying up old cars under the “cash-for-clunkers” scheme. “They spent that, but they don’t have a dime for people who volunteered after 9/11 and ended up giving their lives for their country.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers

Who’s really to blame for this bill not passing, Cobra?

sarainitaly said:
Because if Weiner and Dems wanted this passed, they would have done a straight vote! Did you not HEAR his radio interview with Hannity? he would never give a straight answer why they just didn’t put it through with the 218 votes required. He is getting all hysterical, screaming and throwing temper tantrums, when it could have passed with Democrat support. So, in other words, he threw a big fit that was totally unnecessary. If they want it passed, they could have passed it. End of story.

And as I said above, $4.2B of the money isn’t for healthcare. It is for wages lost, so that has nothing to do with them receiving healthcare. And the $3.2B is for those that are sick, and those who might get sick. AND as I said above, it is for a government program, not reimbursements or payments for healthcare to those affected. I would think it would be much more effective to have people who are sick get their treatment, and then get reimbursed by the govt, then to set up a whole new program/clinic(?). It sounds like a lot of wasteful spending.

Spare me the drama Cobra, as I said, I am not against them getting care, I am against the BS hysterics by Weiner. I also question the $4.2B in the bill, that has everyone screaming that republicans want people to die, when it isn’t for healthcare at all.

Hmm, kind of my point I made previously… And it sounds like the Govt. has done a bang up job handling their two programs they have already set up/funded…..

Sounds like your anger is misdirected.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/10/national/main5300512.shtml

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2010-03-25/Front_Page/Health_care_bill_for_911_responders_advances.html

http://visibility911.com/ford/?p=848

Interesting….

Perhaps I just answered my own question, and have discovered the reason why the Democrats didn’t make this a straight vote, and why Weiner is getting all hysterical, pointing blame at Republicans, when it is not their fault. The Obama administration doesn’t support it…

You didn’t read the part in the article you posted about “straight votes?”

“The hearing took around six hours during which various amendments were introduced and ultimately defeated, including an amendment that would have denied coverage to undocumented first responders and requiring New York City to pay 50 percent of the costs of treatment.”

That’s just out of Committee, Sarah. What kind of amendments would the FULL House GOP members have tried to glom on that bill? We know from the Health Care Bill and others they’ll try to add DOZENS of Amendments meant to make the vote politically unsavory for Democrats.
There’s no such thing as a “straight vote. But you knew this already, right Sarah?

As far as President Obama goes, of course the administration isn’t wade in on a bill not finalized or out of committee. My question to you:

Where were your posts on the Bush Administration?

“Bush Budget Cuts 9/11 Health Funding by 77%
$25 Million Request Would Cover Less Than 1/8 of Current Needs

“This is the starting for negotiations to secure funding for the unsung heroes of 9/11,” said Fossella. “We know the needs are great and the federal government has a responsibility to monitor and treat those who are sick and injured, both today and in the future. We will continue working in a bipartisan manner to help all those who are suffering as a result of 9/11.”

http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1561&Itemid=61

Sarainitaly writes:

“I think about my 40 year old friend with stage 4 inflammatory breast cancer, my 30 yr. old sister in law with breast cancer, my father and father in law both with prostate cancer, my moms best friend who died at 33 of leukemia, my stepmoms best friend who died of brain cancer, my three grandparents who died of cancer, my other from Alzheimer, my aunt at 50, and uncle at 55 from hypertension related illnesses, my aunt at 35 from an aneurysm, my brother in law who had a tumor the size of an orange in his brain at 44, and my ex-boyfriend who died at 28 from leukemia…. None of them having lived in NY.”

What’s your point? And please be clear, because I don’t want to be accused of smearing you. You don’t REALLY want to flesh out the “so what–people get sick and die all the time” argument against 9/11 First Responders, do you?

If you DON’T…then you can’t say I never gave you the chance to clarify.
If you DO…then whatever pounding you take from folks on this blog is not my responsibility.

–Cobra

““The hearing took around six hours during which various amendments were introduced and ultimately defeated, including an amendment that would have denied coverage to undocumented first responders and requiring New York City to pay 50 percent of the costs of treatment.”

That’s just out of Committee, Sarah. What kind of amendments would the FULL House GOP members have tried to glom on that bill? We know from the Health Care Bill and others they’ll try to add DOZENS of Amendments meant to make the vote politically unsavory for Democrats.”

First of all, the amendments were defeated. Secondly, how many undocumented workers would be excluded? Do you think that is enough to hold up the bill? I am assuming the actual numbers of undocumented first responders is very small. I am surprised that undocumented workers could even pass the screenings to become first responders. (although there were janitors who are included) Where are the facts on the amendments and who was going to add them, and what were they? I hear strawman arguments but I haven’t found any actual proof. If undocumented janitors were excluded through an amendment, I think the numbers are quite small, and I think something could be done separately to cover them. I want to see numbers. I can’t find any.

“Where were your posts on the Bush Administration?”

Uh, Obama is President. This is 2010.

“What’s your point?”

“You just don’t find a cancer with that kind of aggression in that young of a person,”

My point is, yes, I think you do. And it is possible that a lot of the cancer cases are not related. “Many who died from cancer had the cancer beforehand”. I have found that there is “an emergence of rare blood cancers among 9/11 responders”, but nothing about other forms of cancer, and whether they are higher than the population at large. In my own family I have a large cluster of cancer victims.

http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/science-scope/first-responders-from-911-will-get-up-to-657-million/364/

The lead researcher of a New York State Department of Health study informed The New York Post of a study documenting at least 204 deaths of rescue and recovery workers since September 11, 2001. The researchers for the study confirmed 98 deaths with death certificates. The researchers showed that 77 persons died of illnesses, including 55 from lung and various other cancers. Kitty Gelberg, New York state Bureau of Occupational Health’s chief epidemiologist said, “We’re not saying they are all World Trade Center related; we’re just saying this is what people are dying from.”

Many of the 55 responders who passed away from cancer had cancer before September 11, 2001, but most of the cancer patients developed the disease afterward. After 19 cases of lung cancers, the second-largest cause of death was heart disease, including 10 heart attacks.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_yMv9jixDZNCnW9DXgTYhKJ;jsessionid=E50AB3D4DA7CE0ACAEE23B9A04F5F6DA#ixzz0vLkF6tea

“The researchers looked at 28,252 emergency responders who spent time amid ground zero dust and found eight cases of multiple myeloma.

Those findings were no surprise. Multiple myeloma is the second most common hematological cancer in the U.S. after non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Normally, researchers would expect to find about seven cases in a group as large as the one examined in the study.

However, four of the people who fell ill were under age 45, and multiple myeloma is thought to be more rare among people of that age. Under normal circumstances, researchers would have expected to find only one case of the disease in that age group.”

To date, no study, including the one published Monday, has established a link between that dust and cancer, said Lorna Thorpe, a deputy commissioner and epidemiologist at New York City’s health department.

Most research on multiple myeloma indicates that it usually takes 10 to 20 years for someone to develop that cancer after an environmental exposure to a carcinogen.

In these cases, the cancers were diagnosed in as little as three to four years after the attacks, suggesting that something else caused the disease.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/immune-system-cancer-foun_n_255330.html

“so what–people get sick and die all the time”

I was not saying that. I would never say *so what*. However, as you say, people do get sick and die every day. Many of them quiet heroes, who made a difference in someone’s life, with no acknowledgement or recognition. All of those who rushed in and helped on 9/11 are heroes, and should be cared for.

Which is weird why the Dems just didn’t vote to pass it. But, as I discovered above, Sebelius and Obama don’t support it, apparently.

“The Obama administration has not supported the bill thus far, proposing instead that the funding be year to year.”

“The abrupt revelation came after the Daily News reported New York lawmakers were shocked Wednesday when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the administration does not support mandatory funding for the $11 billion permanent treatment plan.”

“If you DO…then whatever pounding you take from folks on this blog is not my responsibility.” – Yes we wouldn’t want people calling me hateful names, wishing my death, or insulting me….. cuz that’s certainly never happened here before.

SarainItaly writes:

“If you DO…then whatever pounding you take from folks on this blog is not my responsibility.” – Yes we wouldn’t want people calling me hateful names, wishing my death, or insulting me….. cuz that’s certainly never happened here before.”

You’re not going to hear that from me, because my argument evaporates once that happens even among people who agree with me.

SarainItaly writes:

“First of all, the amendments were defeated. Secondly, how many undocumented workers would be excluded? Do you think that is enough to hold up the bill? I am assuming the actual numbers of undocumented first responders is very small. I am surprised that undocumented workers could even pass the screenings to become first responders. (although there were janitors who are included) Where are the facts on the amendments and who was going to add them, and what were they? I hear strawman arguments but I haven’t found any actual proof. If undocumented janitors were excluded through an amendment, I think the numbers are quite small, and I think something could be done separately to cover them. I want to see numbers. I can’t find any. “

There were plenty of silly Amendments the GOP tried in committee:

“Republicans also tried unsuccessfully to add amendments to bar illegal immigrants from the treatment program, to ban abortions among the ailing rescue workers and to end the treatment program when national health reform takes effect.

“Isn’t it laughable? We’re not the terrorists – the terrorists attacked us,” said Kimberly Flynn of Manhattan, who chuckled in disbelief.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/05/26/2010-05-26_plenty_of_rancor_as_911_health_bill_near_reality.html

DELAY & OBFUSCATE. That’s all this is about, Sara–and you KNOW it. You just can’t seem to bring yourself to criticize the GOP for ANYTHING, even though you claim to be “independent.”

sarainItaly writes:

“However, as you say, people do get sick and die every day. Many of them quiet heroes, who made a difference in someone’s life, with no acknowledgement or recognition.”

sarainItaly writes:

“I have found that there is “an emergence of rare blood cancers among 9/11 responders”, but nothing about other forms of cancer, and whether they are higher than the population at large. In my own family I have a large cluster of cancer victims.”

Which is WHY I supported Health Care Reform, because many “quiet heroes” get sick every day, and either don’t have or are denied health insurance coverage.

What was YOUR position on Health Care Reform, Sara?

sarainItaly writes:

“Which is weird why the Dems just didn’t vote to pass it. But, as I discovered above, Sebelius and Obama don’t support it, apparently.

“The abrupt revelation came after the Daily News reported New York lawmakers were shocked Wednesday when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the administration does not support mandatory funding for the $11 billion permanent treatment plan.”

What position do you take, Sara? Do you agree with the Obama Administration’s more CONSERVATIVE “year to year” funding of this program, or the more LIBERAL “all at once” funding proposed by House Dems? How can you have a problem with both funding the program, and Obama for taking the more fiscally responsible position on pay-go funding of the program?

And since you’re all about “fiscal responsibility”—

I’ll ask you YET AGAIN, Sara…do you support MAINTAINING the Bush Tax Cuts for the richest 2% of all Americans at a cost of $830 Billion?

–Cobra

Cobra said:
“Republicans also tried unsuccessfully to add amendments to bar illegal immigrants from the treatment program, to ban abortions among the ailing rescue workers and to end the treatment program when national health reform takes effect.

And in a move that passed – but sparked stunned laughter among the responders – Florida GOP Rep. Cliff Stearns offered an amendment to prevent terrorists from getting 9/11 treatment – suggesting there might be terrorists among the responders.

OK, what is so silly about these amendments? Put aside the barring illegals, because I addressed that one. But, one to exclude abortion – why should abortion even be covered? Federal money isn’t used (supposedly) for abortion. Second, why do they need to continue with the treatment program once national healthcare reform kicks in? Lastly, what is wrong with adding a provision that no terrorists can get treated? Why it is even needed is weird, but who the hell cares if they tack that on?

You really think those amendments are worthy of Dems NOT passing the bill over?

DELAY & OBFUSCATE. Yea, if the Dems were afraid to vote, with those amendments attached, they are idiots.

“How can you have a problem with both funding the program, and Obama for taking the more fiscally responsible position on pay-go funding of the program?”

How many times do I have to repeat myself? My problem is with the BS that Weiner is screaming and crying about. He is BLAMING THIS ON REPUBLICANS, when the Obama administration doesn’t want it, and the Dems chose not to get the damn thing passed. He is throwing temper tantrums all over town, pointing fingers at the Republicans when it is the DEMS fault for not just passing the damn thing, they supposedly *so desperately want*.

Personally, I think it is better to just pay their medical bills as they come, not set up yet another crap government program. There are already at least two, and they suck according to the victims. So, we are going to piss away more billions on another dumb program? Just pay their bills, until Obamacare kicks in.

“What was YOUR position on Health Care Reform, Sara?” – I actually covered this a lot on my blog, and wrote about the pros and cons, as I have experienced and witnessed with both programs. There are definitely some pluses with socialized care, but there are some major negatives as well. And I am totally against making the top 1% of the country pay for it, it is something that everyone should have to pay taxes for (obviously not the extremely poor). In my opinion malpractice insurance is one of the major negatives that prevent docs from being in the position to provide affordable care. The insurance and the costs of equipment. Also medical school. It is a HUGE and complex issue, that effects far more than just your medical payments. If doctors could afford to run offices, I have no doubt there would be free/cheap clinics every where. But they can’t afford to operate them because of the malpractice insurance and medical costs. So, if you’re not going to address ALL of those factors (including medical school tuitions, etc) the best option would be to open up insurance across state lines, and tort reform, and extend Medicaid. I think Obama mucked the whole thing up.

“You just can’t seem to bring yourself to criticize the GOP for ANYTHING, even though you claim to be “independent.”” – I am a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. I am an Indy. I am disgusted with the Democratic party. I spent 8 years complaining about the GOP. The Dems are in power now. Unlike you, I prefer to move forward.

“do you support MAINTAINING the Bush Tax Cuts for the richest 2% of all Americans at a cost of $830 Billion?”

Those cuts included: lowered tax rates across the board on income, dividends and capital gains; eliminated estate tax; lowered burdens on married couples, parents and the working poor; and increased tax credits for education and retirement savings. If you maintain those, and only raise them on the top 2-3%, the cost is $700B over 10 years. If letting them expire will hurt small business, or employment at all, I am for maintaining them.

Not being an economist, but knowing that when I over charge on my credit card, the only way to pay it off is to pay more money, I would think raising taxes is inevitable. But, I also don’t think that only 2% of the country should have to pay. I think everyone should be responsible, on a sliding scale. If taxes go up on the rich, they should go up on everyone else. It may be pennies to millions of dollars in differences, but that’s just how I roll.

I don’t buy into Obama’s way of thinking that he can spend willy nilly and just keep charging *the rich folk*. And I am sick and tired of hearing these stories about politicians who don’t pay their taxes, and dock their boats in other states to avoid taxes, etc. and then get all hysterical because they can’t pass their big govt. programs because there is no money to pay for them.

This is all a big nice discussion, but you are still not addressing my original point that Weiner was being a weiner over something that they totally could have avoided. He is being completely disingenuous and blaming the wrong people. The O administration doesn’t want this thing passed. The Dems created these strawman arguments, they were *worried* about the amendments that are so NOT worthy of holding up a bill if they really wanted it, and they are BLAMING the republicans over this emotional issue. It is total political BS.

sarainitaly writes:

“OK, what is so silly about these amendments? Put aside the barring illegals, because I addressed that one. But, one to exclude abortion – why should abortion even be covered? Federal money isn’t used (supposedly) for abortion. Second, why do they need to continue with the treatment program once national healthcare reform kicks in? Lastly, what is wrong with adding a provision that no terrorists can get treated? Why it is even needed is weird, but who the hell cares if they tack that on?”

Sara…hello? Do you have to have a vote about ABORTION in every SINGLE piece of legislation that goes through congress? Are you actually SERIOUS about this? Terrorists? Are you kidding me? TERRORISTS? Tacking on NONSENSE like that is EXACTLY what I’m talking about as far as unnecessary delay and obfuscation.
Are you disagreeing with me on this point just to be adversarial, or do you actually BELIEVE that every single bill brought up through Congress should have an endless parade of amendments “tacked on” by the opposition party in hopes that one of them will be politically radioactive to the other?

Sarainitaly writes:

“And I am totally against making the top 1% of the country pay for it, it is something that everyone should have to pay taxes for (obviously not the extremely poor). In my opinion malpractice insurance is one of the major negatives that prevent docs from being in the position to provide affordable care. The insurance and the costs of equipment. Also medical school. It is a HUGE and complex issue, that effects far more than just your medical payments. If doctors could afford to run offices, I have no doubt there would be free/cheap clinics every where. But they can’t afford to operate them because of the malpractice insurance and medical costs. So, if you’re not going to address ALL of those factors (including medical school tuitions, etc) the best option would be to open up insurance across state lines, and tort reform, and extend Medicaid. I think Obama mucked the whole thing up.”

Again…did you pay attention to the health care debates at all? You’re framing this issue as though insurance companies are covering everybody who want to buy their product.

They are NOT. You KNOW they are NOT. They HAVE NOT for DECADES. Opening up insurance across state lines is going to do….what? They could DENY you coverage from 3000 miles away? Is that your solution? The whole health insurance scheme is based on the principle that the only way to make a profit is to cover healthy people. Sick people are not profitable, Sara. Tort reform? What…so a Doctor has a smaller insurance premium a month is going to do WHAT? Cause a reduction in costs for services? Prescription drugs are going to go on sale? Where are you getting this from, Sara?

Presidents since TEDDY ROOSEVELT have been trying to address this issue, and FAILED. Obama succeeded, and we have a program that is more CONSERVATIVE than the National Health Care plan proposed by Republican Richard Nixon. Nixon’s plan had a PUBLIC OPTION.

But that’s not even the larger issue. Look at what you write HERE:

“Those cuts included: lowered tax rates across the board on income, dividends and capital gains; eliminated estate tax; lowered burdens on married couples, parents and the working poor; and increased tax credits for education and retirement savings. If you maintain those, and only raise them on the top 2-3%, the cost is $700B over 10 years. If letting them expire will hurt small business, or employment at all, I am for maintaining them.”

We’ve operated, and are CURRENTLY operating under those very tax cuts you love so much.

“Job growth through Clinton two terms was 22.7 million. Through Bush’s two terms, it was 1.1 million….

…The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

The Wall Street Journal is NOT a liberal periodical. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire and return to the Clinton rate, where 22.7 MILLION JOBS were created, the budget was BALANCED and stated making a SURPLUS and we were paying down the NATIONAL DEBT. They aren’t asking to go back to Nixon’s(R) Tax rate (70%) or Eisenhower’s (R) (92%), but 39.4%–3 points.

For pete’s sake, Sara, America is FIGHTING TWO WARS. No civilization in recorded history ever fought a war and then CUT taxes…except for America, which is borrowing from China & Japan to PAY for them. Does that make ANY sense whatsoever to you?

I know…I know…you can’t be seen in here actually AGREEING with anything I say, because that’s not the game in here. You’re too busy blaming Anthony Weiner for being passionate about his CONSTITUENTS who need somebody to speak for them, and holding BLAMELESS Republicans who can’t bring themselves to vote yes on ANYTHING that comes from the Democrats.

–Cobra

“do you actually BELIEVE that every single bill brought up through Congress should have an endless parade of amendments “tacked on” by the opposition party in hopes that one of them will be politically radioactive to the other?”

As I said, I don’t like the idea of amendments at all. That said, I do not think these amendments you listed should prevent Dems from voting for this piece of legislation, if they really want it passed. There is absolutely no reason they should be bothered by no monies going to abortion, and terrorists.

“What…so a Doctor has a smaller insurance premium a month is going to do WHAT? Cause a reduction in costs for services? ”

Yes, I believe that if there was tort reform, malpractice insurance would be a lot cheaper, and doctors could actually afford to open up offices/clinics and provide affordable service. Malpractice insurance rates drive a lot of docs out of work.

Add on the cost of medical school (loan payments), medical equipment, supplies, staff, space, medicare/aid reimbursements, etc. it is too costly for a lot of well intentioned doctors to open up affordable clinics. I’m saying to fix the entire system, you have to address a plethora of issues. But I believe that if Docs could afford their insurance many could afford to open up practices, to treat and care for people. And if there were doctors providing preventative care that people could afford, that would ease the strain/dependence on insurance companies. but I also believe that we need insurance reform that you can’t drop people, which is why I think opening up across state lines increases competition, and forces companies to act accordingly.

“We’ve operated, and are CURRENTLY operating under those very tax cuts you love so much.” – And I said this where, exactly?

“Does that make ANY sense whatsoever to you?” – Did you not read my comments where I said it makes sense to me that in order to pay back debt, you have to INCREASE taxes? I believe that if you raise them on the rich, you raise them on everyone. What I want to know, honestly, from business leaders around the country, if they raise their taxes, will they lay people off. Steve Blamer has already said he is sending jobs overseas because of tax increases proposed by Obama. So have other companies. I think we need to give companies tax incentives to STAY in the US.

I am blaming Anthony Weiner for lying and blaming all this on Republicans when they DIDN’T just vote to pass it, because of the threat that abortion and terrorists would not be getting any money. And when the Obama administration doesn’t support the bill. Why didn’t 100% of Dems vote for it? Why didn’t they just do a straight vote and pass the damn thing?

SaraInItaly writes:

“That said, I do not think these amendments you listed should prevent Dems from voting for this piece of legislation, if they really want it passed. There is absolutely no reason they should be bothered by no monies going to abortion, and terrorists. “

Again…again…AGAIN…Republicans are NOT making these Amendments to improve any of these bills whatsoever…because THEY VOTE NO REGARDLESS of WHAT Amendments they add. Don’t you get that it’s a TACTIC to stall, delay and obfuscate. You say you “don’t like amendments?” Then say it HERE on the record:

“I, SarainItaly, don’t like what the Republicans are doing in Congress with all these amendments.”

Show me you have the courage of your convictions, Sara.

SarainItaly writes:

“What I want to know, honestly, from business leaders around the country, if they raise their taxes, will they lay people off. Steve Blamer has already said he is sending jobs overseas because of tax increases proposed by Obama. So have other companies. I think we need to give companies tax incentives to STAY in the US. “

?????????

Sara, where have you been for the past 30 years? You think business are going to START(!) “sending jobs overseas because of tax increases proposed by Obama?”

You can’t be serious.

Take YOUR example, Steve Ballmer:

” Chief Executive Steve Ballmer visited China in 2003 and promised to step up the pace, from $33 million worth of work a year to $55 million a year, according to a statement by Kai-Fu Lee, a former vice president who left to work for Google in July. Lee was charged with smoothing over relations with China and finding jobs that could be shifted to Chinese contract workers.

“At the time of my departure, MS was on track to outsource over 1,000 jobs a year to China,” he said in a court declaration. A Microsoft spokeswoman said the company has transferred some projects to China “in order to free up teams here for other work.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002468560_msftgoogle03.html

“NEW DELHI, Dec. 31 (UPI) — In 1999, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer thought India was plagued by high levels of piracy and was not the best place to hire new staff.

The issue of outsourcing, though profitable in India, has threatened to chill warm bilateral relations between New Delhi and Washington because the country remained an increasingly popular destination for U.S. companies, which cut their jobs in the United States. That prompted some U.S. lawmakers to threaten firms that outsource their jobs to countries like India with tax disincentives. And though U.S. President Bush, who backs outsourcing, won the November election, the issue dominated the campaign.”

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2004/12/31/India-says-outsourcing-jobs-good-for-US/UPI-49411104531350/

There’s your Boy, Sara… PROUDLY outsourcing jobs like there’s no tommorrow…during the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Don’t get me wrong, Sara…I have plenty of problems with Reagan, Bush 1 and CLINTON for pushing free trade and virtually destroying manufacturing in America, but please stop this nonsense about CEO’s “threatening” to send jobs overseas…when they’ve been doing it for DECADES before Barak Obama was even in college, much less Congress or the White House.

SarainItaly writes:

“I am blaming Anthony Weiner for lying and blaming all this on Republicans when they DIDN’T just vote to pass it, because of the threat that abortion and terrorists would not be getting any money. And when the Obama administration doesn’t support the bill. Why didn’t 100% of Dems vote for it? Why didn’t they just do a straight vote and pass the damn thing?”

Now you’re a fan of the Democrats on this? Why didn’t more than ELEVEN Republicans vote for it? What? Being Republican ABSOLVES one from any Responsibilty? If your house is on fire, Sara, would you check the party affiliation of the firemen trying to rescue you?

I don’t think so.

–Cobra

I have no problem with those amendments.
I don’t think thy need another government program, so I don’t really agree with this bill, as I understand it.
I know MS and other companies have already moved tons of jobs overseas. My point is if they are now even threatening to move MORE because of Obama’s tax plans, then I don’t think that is the best thing for the economy right now. I would prefer they provide tax incentives to keep them in the US, and bring them back.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY

“There’s your Boy, Sara” – you are weird.

“Now you’re a fan of the Democrats on this?” – And I said this where, exactly? You sure make a lot of assumptions…. I am AGAINST ANTHONY WIENERS BULLSHIT TEMPER TANTRUM BLAMING REPUBLICANS FOR SOMETHING THAT HE AND DEMOCRATS DIDN’T PASS BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN BS. How many times do I have to repeat myself? The republicans didn’t vote for it, apparently, because they don’t support it. Just like Obama doesn’t support it.