Advertisement

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • So much for the heroes, 911 responders & vets

    Posted by kayla.meyer_144 on December 20, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Opposition to the 9-11 Health Care Fund for 1st responders. Vets who can’t get adequate treatment for wounds from Iraq & Afghanistan.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-09/9senate-republicans-block-bill-for-ill-9-11-workers.html

    Senate Republicans blocked a bill providing as much as $7.4 billion in health costs for thousands of volunteers and workers ill from toxic dust after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

    The 57-to-42 vote along party lines cut off debate three votes short of the 60 needed to bring the bill to the floor under the Senates procedural rules. Republicans objected that the program would have been financed by eliminating a tax break given to foreign corporations with U.S. subsidiaries.

    The bill, named after James Zadroga, a New York City police officer who died of respiratory disease after working on recovery operations in the trade center rubble, passed the House of Representatives in September.

    The Senate vote is a tragic example of partisan politics trumping patriotism, said Mayor Michael Bloomberg in an e- mailed statement. He urged the Republicans to reconsider.

    We have a collective responsibility to care for the heroes — from all 50 states — who answered the call of duty, saved lives and helped our nation recover, Bloomberg said.

    Concerned with returning vets? So long as their medical costs aren’t too high for the wounded? That’s the position of some. Here’s another expense for you to ponder.

    http://www.propublica.org/article/pentagon-health-plan-wont-cover-brain-damage-therapy-for-troops

    During the past few decades, scientists have become increasingly persuaded that people who suffer brain injuries benefit from what is called cognitive rehabilitation therapy — a lengthy, painstaking process in which patients relearn basic life tasks such as counting, cooking or remembering directions to get home.

    Many neurologists, several major insurance companies and even some medical facilities run by the Pentagon agree that the therapy can help people whose functioning has been diminished by blows to the head.

    But despite pressure from Congress and the recommendations of military and civilian experts, the Pentagon’s health plan for troops and many veterans refuses to cover the treatment — a decision that could affect the tens of thousands of service members who have suffered brain damage while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Tricare, an insurance-style program covering nearly 4 million active-duty military and retirees, says the scientific evidence does not justify providing comprehensive cognitive rehabilitation. Tricare officials say an assessment of the available research that they commissioned last year shows that the therapy is not well proven.

    Last year, a panel of 50 civilian and military brain specialists convened by the Pentagon unanimously concluded that cognitive therapy was an effective treatment that would help many brain-damaged troops. More than a decade ago, a similar panel convened by the National Institutes of Health reached a similar consensus. Several peer-reviewed studies in the past few years have also endorsed cognitive therapy as a treatment for brain injury.

    Tricare officials said their decisions are based on regulations requiring scientific proof of the efficacy and quality of treatment. But our investigation found that Tricare officials have worried in private meetings about the high cost of cognitive rehabilitation, which can cost $15,000 to $50,000 per soldier.

    http://www.npr.org/2010/12/20/132145959/pentagon-health-plan-wont-cover-brain-damage-therapy-for-troops

    btomba_77 replied 1 year, 11 months ago 10 Members · 64 Replies
  • 64 Replies
  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    December 21, 2010 at 6:48 am

    [b]Republicans objected that the program would have been financed by eliminating a tax break given to foreign corporations with U.S. subsidiaries.
    [/b]

    Disgusting, and one more nail in the coffin of perception that the Republicans would throw ordinary, real citizens under the bus to protect and satisfy their corporate Oligarchic Masters.

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      December 21, 2010 at 6:59 am

      [b][i]corporate Oligarchic Masters

      [/i][/b]this would be a cool name for a rock and roll band.

      • jquinones8812_854

        Member
        December 21, 2010 at 7:08 am

        LOL.

        You guys are really funny. You talk about budget deficits, and then don’t want this to be budget neutral. All Republicans want is offsets. They support the funding. But because they ask for paying for this, instead of defict spending, they are heartless.

        This is exactly why Democrats will never be able to balance a budget if they control Congress, ever.

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          December 21, 2010 at 9:48 am

          Oh give me a break. Although I enjoy his show, John Stewarts push for this by interviewing first reposnders “sickened” by 9/11 heriocs made me sick.

          Examples:
          The guy who I would bet it all was a chronic smoker blaming his esophogeal cancer on 9/11
          The overweight slob blaming his heart disease on 9/11.
          etc etc –

          The fact that they already have health insurance via their overindulgent public union contracts was glossed over.

          IMHO, this is just another attempted grab of taxpayer money. They did their jobs, what they are paid to do. I think this is pathetic.
          I think this interview speaks volumes. What an entitled society we have become!

          Here is the video link – watch from 1:00 to 1:50 for the “chief complaints” –

          http://www.positivelybarack.com/2010/12/17/jon-stewart-interviews-911-responders/

          • eyoab2011_711

            Member
            December 21, 2010 at 10:45 am

            Ladies and gentlemen Republican compassion at its finest…blame the victim. And closing a tax loophole is funding this so there is an offset. BTW what do Repubs want to cut from the budget to pay for this? Where is the amendment or the policy statement. Even their masters at Fox are starting to get cold feet…see Mike Huckabee on same Daily Show.

        • kayla.meyer_144

          Member
          December 21, 2010 at 10:56 am

          ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

          LOL.

          You guys are really funny. You talk about budget deficits, and then don’t want this to be budget neutral. All Republicans want is offsets. They support the funding. But because they ask for paying for this, instead of defict spending, they are heartless.

          This is exactly why Democrats will never be able to balance a budget if they control Congress, ever.

          1. Coming from the party who funded Afghanistan & Iraq on a tax break is funny. Where were the offsets then?
          2. The 9-11 responders & Afghanistan/Iraq were hailed as heroes. Now they are fakes who illnesses are self-created. I’m sure those suffering from brain damage from physical trauma in Iraq & Afghanistan are faking & looking to get paid to sit around. Amazing how much fakery there is out there. This bill for 2 guys, one fat & the other smokes. We should deny all care for fat smokers I guess. No Mistrad, this is not directly at you.
          3. Think of the damage from the Bush tax breaks. Just 12 years ago the Fed Reserve thought we were well on the way to pay off our debt. They cost more than health care does within 10 years & put us deep into debt after a surplus & left no cushion when the bottom fell out.
          http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66778/roger-c-altman-and-richard-n-haass/american-profligacy-and-american-power

          It was only relatively recently that the United States became so indebted. Just 12 years ago, its national debt (defined as federal debt held by the public) was in line with the long-term historical average, around 35 percent of GDP. The U.S. government’s budget was in surplus, meaning that the total amount of debt was shrinking. Federal Reserve officials even publicly discussed the possibility that all of the debt might be paid off.

          4. Tax breaks should not be counted against the debt but the cost of paying for our “heroes” medical care must?

          Isn’t there a disconnect here?

          • jquinones8812_854

            Member
            December 21, 2010 at 11:59 am

            I know I was going to attacked…and I don’t care.

            You guys will never cut the budget because of these stories. I admit this is a worthy spending outlet. But that said, every spending program has some sob story. So, cut some of those so you can spend on this one. I have no problem with that.

            Tax breaks should not count against the budget, until such time that you either have or don’t have the money. Do you plan income increases into your budget, and then if they don’t come through call it a deficit? No business is run that way, don’t know why Govt should be.

            And talking of damage…the Obama stimulus and the Obama health care bill will cause 3 times the longterm fiscal damage as the Bush tax cuts, according to the CBO. Talk about damage.

            Again, the Democrats simply are not competent to deal with the budget…they prove that time and again. .

            You could easily pay for this bill by simply getting rid of wasteful spending. Easily. Heck, get rid of the waste in the Dems Omnibus bill that they tried to pass last week, and it could pay for this. But no…Dems won’t do that.

            • Unknown Member

              Deleted User
              December 21, 2010 at 12:12 pm

              As Chris Cristie said the other night, the gov’t does not have an income problem, it has a benefits problem. The politicians have promised the impossible, and the open hands keep showing up demanding more.

              We need to cut back spending and put personal responsibility back on the citizens.

              Founding fathers rolling in graves as fat slobs try to suck the tit dry, and Lexus liberals too blind to see the end game of their ‘selflessness”

              • Unknown Member

                Deleted User
                December 21, 2010 at 1:08 pm

                ORIGINAL: Xpert

                As Chris Cristie said the other night, the gov’t does not have an income problem, it has a benefits problem. The politicians have promised the impossible, and the open hands keep showing up demanding more.

                We need to cut back spending and put personal responsibility back on the citizens.

                Founding fathers rolling in graves as fat slobs try to suck the tit dry, and Lexus liberals too blind to see the end game of their ‘selflessness”

                Funny that you chose a thread about our veterans’ needs to respond to this way. Where are Hero and RVU to decry the disregard for our hallowed vets?

            • Unknown Member

              Deleted User
              December 21, 2010 at 1:11 pm

              [b]You could easily pay for this bill by simply getting rid of wasteful spending

              [/b]Oh, you mean like[b] [/b]tax breaks given to foreign corporations with U.S. subsidiaries?

              • Unknown Member

                Deleted User
                December 21, 2010 at 1:45 pm

                look, I am just sick of the misinformation campaign. This from an editorial form one of our NY senators:

                [i]Heroes like NYPD Officer Robert Helmke, who died from Stage IV metastatic colorectal cancer caused by inhaling and swallowing toxins at ground zero. He was 43. Robert worked many tours of duty at ground zero. He ate food and unknowingly inhaled toxic substances while working. At no time while working at ground zero was he instructed to wear a breathing apparatus, nor was he told that the air was unhealthy.
                Stage IV metastatic colorectal cancer is a form of cancer in the upper GI tract, and it is very rare to see it in a man so young. He was told that treatment would not cure him, only help him live longer.[/i]

                GIVE ME A BREAK! So much for evidence based medicine…..here is her entire editorial

                http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/21/gillibrand.wtc.responders.bill/index.html?hpt=C2

                I am not doubting that in performing they were heroic in doing their jobs. However, this is just another money grab IMHO. Pathetic.

                • jquinones8812_854

                  Member
                  December 21, 2010 at 1:59 pm

                  I actually specifically chose this thread to make the point.

                  You think it is going to be easy to cut spending? It is going to be painful, and hard, and tears will be shed. Virtually every dollar spent by the government is essential to someone. We are going have to make painful choices.

                  This is a perfect example. I think this should be funded. So, let us find the money needed to fund it. Instead, all I hear are sob stories…which are valid, but simply dont answer the budgetary question.

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    December 21, 2010 at 2:07 pm

                    But, it looked to me like the Dems had a way to pay — one the ‘Pubs didn’t like. It’s those sacrosanct corporate giveaways (ahem: free market ‘stimulus’): tax writeoffs and subsidies.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 21, 2010 at 3:13 pm

                      This has nothing to do with balancing the budget. The house plan was paid for completely by closing a tax loophole. The GOP objected to closisng the loophole. They wanted it funded from some other means. The total bill was 6.2 billion. The least we could do for these guys and girls is pay for their care after what they did for us.

                    • eyoab2011_711

                      Member
                      December 21, 2010 at 3:48 pm

                      And of course they didn’t feel the need for offsets in the 85 billion for modernization of the nuclear arsenal as a requested bribe to pass new START. The problem is repubs only want offsets for spending that is not their idea.

                    • srinella

                      Member
                      December 21, 2010 at 6:12 pm

                      “[b]repubs only want offsets for spending that is not their idea. [/b]”

                      Game, set, match, yatzee, bingo, battleship, etc etc

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 21, 2010 at 7:07 pm

                      And Dems only want offsets for ideas that aren’t theirs. So what’s new?

                    • srinella

                      Member
                      December 21, 2010 at 10:53 pm

                      Oh, there is nothing new. but the republican party claims to be the party of the patriot….the solider, the heros of our nation. but when it comes to backing them where it counts (which is with money) they go running for the hills and strart invoking budgetary neutrality etc etc. which would be FINE if they were consistent about this. but NOOOO they are NOT. they are the first to drum up deficits on things that they feel are important (wars against the wrong people for example) yet all of a sudden, when the spending would go to someone not in their circle of trust (big business…the super rich) they start clamoring for fiscal restraint.

                      i would say liberals are much more consistent in their idiodicy at least. the so called conservatives are only conservative with regards to a few things (conserving their money, their power, their institutionalized advantages). conserving the environment ( something necessary for life to take place at all..let alone business, wars, etc) should be something the RIGHT would be way out in front of, instead of having to be bludgeoned over the head with necessity of it, days late and dollars short.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 1:55 am

                      Thank you agentmichael, that is precisely the issue. Yesterday’s heroes are today’s spending and deficit problem. We thank them for their service yesterday but could they please go away today since they are only interested in grabbing money today – which would certainly explain their actions yesterday.

                      Yes Mistrad, it’s about selecting priorities but this plays like Groundhog Day, the movie. Someone then get out there & tell the responders & vets, “Thanks for the memories…” but they are bleeding the Country dry with the needy money-grabbing, as has been described.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 5:49 am

                      That is exactly the point. Your statement is simple nonsense.

                      Simply choose a program to delete, and start this program. But no one has the courage to do that, do they?

                      You can make any argument you want, but until we get to a point where we make those really really hard choices, we will continue to go bankrupt.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 22, 2010 at 6:29 am

                      A good place to start would be to tell those greedy corporations with their records profits post- 2008 where to stick it.

                      The Republicans are showing their true colors in ways no rhetoric could better demonstrate.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 7:48 am

                      ORIGINAL: itchn2help

                      A good place to start would be to tell those greedy corporations with their records profits post- 2008 where to stick it.

                      The Republicans are showing their true colors in ways no rhetoric could better demonstrate.

                      Those corporations are apparently essential to Obama’s plan for economic recovery, as he made it possible for their greedy profits.

                      Second, as usual, Nobody only gives part of the story, and misses the point. The bill now increases some excise taxes to pay for the bill. Republicans don’t want any more taxes, only spending cuts.

                      If I were there, I would find a way to pass this bill. But for Dems to claim that they can’t find $7 billion in cuts for this thing is a pure political ploy. This will get passed, either now or under Republicans in January. If it happens in January, it will be paid 10% by spending cuts. That is the only difference.

                      And itchn, you are right about one thing: this shows that Repubs will eventually be serious about spending, while Dems never will be.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 22, 2010 at 8:19 am

                      SImple question: What is this the purpose of this health bill?

                      From everything I have seen, it is to pay for a myriad of medical problems (cancer, heart disease, etc) that are ALL blamed on the events of 9/11/01.

                      WHAT THE *(#&$(*&#???????

                      Can any of the supporters of this bill tell me with a straight face that they truly believe one guys throat CA, anothers metastatic colon CA, anothers heart disease, anothers headache and back pain, etc etc are ALL caused by the events of 9/11??

                      That is the issue here.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 8:26 am

                      Interesting question…and one I honestly don’t know the answer to.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 22, 2010 at 9:44 am

                      You don’t make the connection between tax breaks for offshore corporations and “spending”?? That a giveaway to Big Business in the form of an artificial lowering of tax rates in order to incentivize business is another form of subsidy? And we need to sacrifice — we “real people”, citizens, vets… — to make the way easier for corporations that are largely posting record profits anyway, just as so many of our people are being squeezed to oblivion??
                      Wow.

                    • jasbelenecolon_394

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 10:06 am

                      ORIGINAL: itchn2help

                      You don’t make the connection between tax breaks for offshore corporations and “spending”?? That a giveaway to Big Business in the form of an artificial lowering of tax rates in order to incentivize business is another form of subsidy? And we need to sacrifice — we “real people”, citizens, vets… — to make the way easier for corporations that are largely posting record profits anyway, just as so many of our people are being squeezed to oblivion??
                      Wow.

                      The Right will sugar coat and tell you that if Big Business thrives, all that financial goodness runs downhill to the little guy, who is merely sucking at the teat of the important people above. Of course, the Left often tries to amp up the populace by implying that the super rich are holding them down.
                      I suspect both sides are onto something.
                      All I know is that the rich can ALWAYS take care of themselves and their friends; they don’t need any help. They can find a way to get what they need, EVERYTIME. The other 98% are the ones who have to scramble for solutions. Never shed a tear for the financial problems of the rich.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 10:19 am

                      ORIGINAL: itchn2help

                      You don’t make the connection between tax breaks for offshore corporations and “spending”?? That a giveaway to Big Business in the form of an artificial lowering of tax rates in order to incentivize business is another form of subsidy? And we need to sacrifice — we “real people”, citizens, vets… — to make the way easier for corporations that are largely posting record profits anyway, just as so many of our people are being squeezed to oblivion??
                      Wow.

                      If you want to simplify the tax code, and get rid of most tax loopholes and breaks, I am all ears. I support, for example, the deficit commission.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 10:20 am

                      Every issue is a moral issue, if you want to play it that way.

                      That is why liberals cannot be trusted with the budget.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 10:46 am

                      It is the Democrats who watch the till, not the Republicans. The Republican mantra for the past 30 years has been “Bust the bank.”

                      Dana Milbank has an appropriate term for Republicans, the Petulant Party.

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122104616.html

                      So it has come to this: Members of the Petulant Party want to stop the START treaty (and block a bill that would help Ground Zero first responders pay medical bills) because they wish to get home to their figgy pudding. This might be called playing the Christmas card.

                      Petulant leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) spelled out the real reason on the Senate floor Monday. McConnell, who said Republicans’ “single most important” goal was Obama’s defeat, said that in this case he didn’t want to facilitate “some politician’s desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year.”

                      So powerful has been the Petulants’ desire to deny Obama a news conference that they defied the recommendation of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates (a Bush administration holdover) in their unsuccessful defense on Saturday of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on openly gay service members. And, separately, the Petulants’ efforts to prevent the Sept. 11 bill from coming to the floor earned labels such as “disgrace” and “national shame” from the usually friendly hosts at Fox News.

                      Quizzed about the Sept. 11 bill on Fox News Sunday, Kyl belittled the “emotional appeal” made by the first responders.

                      But Kyl was the one making an emotional appeal on Tuesday. He started his START press conference with a complaint that Democrats took “a very partisan approach to this treaty.”

                      That must be how they won the support of Colin Powell, Jim Baker and Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

                      On Tuesday, enough Republicans said “yes” to send the treaty to likely ratification on Wednesday. [b]But the Petulant Party is only getting organized. As McConnell told Politico this week: “If they think it’s bad now, wait ’til next year.”[[/b]/quote]

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 2:08 pm

                      Um, no, I don’t think so.

                      No Democrat Congress has overseen a balanced budget in half a century, thank you very much.

                      Also, now that the Republicans agreed, what is your problem? Of course, this was only a political issue for Democrats, as I said from the get go. And the only way to get most Democrats to pay as you go is to force their hand, as Republicans did here.

                      And if you like ‘petulance’, as you describe it, you are going to love the next congress.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 22, 2010 at 2:19 pm

                      I am not so sure that things will change. I do not see the political will to carry through with cutting spending. Politicians dare not force austerity on our citizens, who are so deserved of their Dancing with the Stars timeouts.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 2:27 pm

                      Someone has to. And I am cynical, but I think the only way we get change is cross party govt control. I am hopeful that Obama, who wants to get re-elected, may be willing for cost cutting that he otherwise would not be. And Republicans, forced by their right by the tea party and Obama on the left, hopefully will be forced to cut. It has happened before. If Obama goes back to the Obama of 2008, instead of 2009, there is hope.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 9:54 am

                      If you expose anyone to radiation or chemicals, can you PROVE that the disease they got 10 years later is absolutely CAUSED by that exposure? What if that person is among a group of people exposed most of whom exhibit similar diseases 10 years later, can you absolutely PROVE causality in each individual? Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Nevada nuclear testing grounds, uranium mine workers? Even in those cases you cannot prove that absolutely their exposure was THE CAUSE of their disease you can only show statistical likelihood. How about so-called clusters? Even if you are in a cluster you can never prove absolutely the cause even though all of your neighbors have the same cancer & developed it around the same time. You just might be the odd bird that got it for different reasons.

                      A better question is whether, compared to the normal population of similar individuals, the 9-11 responders have a higher incidence of similar disease. If the answer is yes I think you might be onto something.

                    • jasbelenecolon_394

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 9:41 am

                      ORIGINAL: Xpert

                      SImple question: What is this the purpose of this health bill?

                      From everything I have seen, it is to pay for a myriad of medical problems (cancer, heart disease, etc) that are ALL blamed on the events of 9/11/01.

                      WHAT THE *(#&$(*&#???????

                      Can any of the supporters of this bill tell me with a straight face that they truly believe one guys throat CA, anothers metastatic colon CA, anothers heart disease, anothers headache and back pain, etc etc are ALL caused by the events of 9/11??

                      That is the issue here.

                      It is pretty clear that we cannot assign an etiology of most of these diseases. We can only say that these people went into the area, where uncertain conditions existed, in order to try to help the victims. They could have been impaled or crushed by falling debris, and only then we would know what killed them.
                      At the very least, these people put themselves in danger’s way to help innocent victims; not unlike the military. We take care of the military—we should take care of these selfless heroes as well.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 10:06 am

                      http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/how-did-republicans-end-up-against-911-responders-bill/

                      With just hours left in the 111th Congress, Republican lawmakers find themselves the target of ire and scorn from the most unlikely of adversaries: the firefighters and police officers who rushed into the burning twin towers on Sept. 11 nearly a decade ago and worked at the site for months afterward.

                      That predicament crystallized Tuesday when Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York during the attacks, condemned his fellow Republicans as being on the wrong side of morality and obligation for failing to support legislation to provide medical benefits for the first responders.

                      This should not be seen as a Democratic or Republican issue, Mr. Giuliani, a Republican who ran for president in 2008, said on a Fox News affiliate. [b]It shouldnt even be seen as a fiscal issue. Its a matter of morality, of obligation.[/b]

                      Headlines in normally conservative news outlets blasted Republicans. Newsmaxx.com wrote that: Giuliani Raps Fellow Republicans for Holding Up 9/11 Heroes Money. Fox News host Shepard Smith drew attention to Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who has said he will try to block the legislation.

                      He is the man who is vowing to slow this down or block it, so the necessary funding for the illnesses of the first responders who made it to ground zero to try to save lives on the day that America changed remember?, Mr. Smith said during his broadcast Tuesday. This is the senator who is vowing to block it so that it doesnt make it through.

                      Its a terrible, terrible mistake to be seen as opposing relief for 9/11 heroes, Joe Scarborough said. [b]This is one of those times when you get so wrapped up in the game that you forget to look and see whats happening.”[/b]

                      The nation, the nation sends its love and compassion, Mr. Bush says into a megaphone, his arms around a firefighter. The video shows Republican lawmakers paying tribute to the first responders in years past, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who says: [b]I want to pay special tribute to those people who were so heroic to give their own lives to protect the lives of so many others.[/b]

                      I guess though not if we have to pay for it or if political points can be gained at the responder’s expense. Yesterday’s heroes, today’s expense. Why don’t they just go away? Jeez, it was almost 10 years ago!

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 22, 2010 at 10:05 pm

                      ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                      Second, as usual, Nobody only gives part of the story, and misses the point. The bill now increases some excise taxes to pay for the bill. Republicans don’t want any more taxes, only spending cuts.

                      No, you were being either duplicitous or lying by claiming the Dems don’t care about the budget. The bill is paid for. Period. That was the point.

                    • srinella

                      Member
                      December 22, 2010 at 11:11 pm

                      so let me understand the republican plan for paying for programs that they themselves deem necessary…

                      -dont raise taxes of any kind.

                      – in fact, decrease taxes…of all kinds…

                      -the invisible hand will go in to effect….with the lowered tax burden, the incentives to work hard, take risk, and basically earn more money will go up. this will lead to increased revenue for those who indeed do work hard, take risks..etc etc.

                      – this increased revenue by the individual will then in turn add revenue back to the federal govt in the form of taxes…..the total dollars in revenue collected from taxes will go up, even though the tax RATE has gone down. likewise revenue from capital gains will go up…even though the rates will go down..since there simply is more to collect.

                      this is the ENTIRE basis of religion of the right. there is some data that supports the capital gains argument…..although it is a small sample in time.

                      some things are worth increasing taxes for…..any ideology that is always for this or against that without looking into specifics of time and situation is an ideology that need not be adhered to or championed.

                      this is essentially what has become of our political system…..it has become religion….where people are more into supporting the ideology than the ideas themselves.

                      as the world becomes more and more atheist and agnostic on one hand, one deity is simply being replaced by another…the worship continues unabated.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 23, 2010 at 6:31 am

                      ORIGINAL: nobody2008

                      ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                      Second, as usual, Nobody only gives part of the story, and misses the point. The bill now increases some excise taxes to pay for the bill. Republicans don’t want any more taxes, only spending cuts.

                      No, you were being either duplicitous or lying by claiming the Dems don’t care about the budget. The bill is paid for. Period. That was the point.

                      OK. MOST Dems don’t care about the budget. And the initial bill was not paid for at all. Only when Republicans pushed did they find a way to pay for it. So as usual, it is you being duplicitous.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 23, 2010 at 6:34 am

                      Republicans, and apparently Obama, believe that you don’t raise taxes during a recession. The extreme right, I am sure, will probably fight tax increases forever. But I think the bulk of Republicans understand that once the economy starts moving, you may have to increase taxes to close the hole.

                      Again, show me an economic theory which says that raising taxes in a recession is a good idea. Neither liberal or conservative ideology believes that.

                      Liberals, on the other hand, believe virtually every govt program is sacrosanct. Is there anything they are willing to defund? LIberals are still whining about welfare reform in the 1990s, for God sake.

                      Every time liberals have had a chance to cut spending…they avoid it.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 23, 2010 at 8:00 am

                      [b]the bulk of Republicans understand that once the economy starts moving, you may have to increase taxes to close the hole.

                      [/b]Do they? After all, they were fighting to get the cuts made permanent.[b]
                      [/b]

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 23, 2010 at 8:34 am

                      The major benefit of the extension is to establish economic stability…people now know what their rates are going to be for the foreseeable future. I see no difference between that and the 2 year extension. Does anyone believe Obama will block further extension in 2012? I doubt it.

                      But you make a change when the economy is moving. If you have a 4% GDP growth rate, then you can talk about it. But until then, allowing the economy to recover is job 1.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      January 10, 2011 at 3:12 pm

                      I cannot beleive how naive and to a certain point ignorant some of us are. We should treat every “act” from the congress as one of two things: 1. for the show purpose (show the people they are doing something in the name of children etc.. such as CPSIA, ADA, and 2. lawyer full employment act. This one is a little bit both. [link=http://www.overlawyered.com/]www.overlawyered.com[/link] is a website I routinely check to see what and who is really behind these legislatures. The facts that I can recall is there were over 110,000 people claimed as “first responders” including two from Wyoming or Utah. The whole system is flooded with fraud and trial lawyers.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      June 12, 2019 at 11:38 am

                      Another bout of not funding the 9-11 victims fund. John Stewart at the forefront again pushing for replenishing the fund while Congress dawdles and plays politics with peoples’ lives.
                       
                      I guess some in Congress are complaining, “Who are they? Aren’t they dead yet? Keeping them alive is expensive!”
                       
                      [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/after-emotional-testimony-from-911-responders-house-panel-votes-to-replenish-victim-fund/2019/06/12/826ffa1e-8d27-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…2795fca3343_story.html[/link]
                       

                      The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted unanimously in support of a bill that would give fresh money to a compensation fund for those who are sick or dying from illnesses linked to their work amid the toxic debris at 9/11 attack sites.
                      The vote comes a day after an emotional hearing in which ailing first responders and former Daily Show host Jon Stewart lambasted lawmakers inaction on the issue.
                       
                      Anger and frustration over the fund have been growing since February, when it was announced that future payouts will be cut as much as 70 percent to offset surging claims from those who are ill and the families of those who have died.
                       
                      Lawmakers said they expect a full House vote next month. The bill is expected to pass easily in the House, but its prospects are less certain in the Senate.
                       
                      Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) implored Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring the bill to a vote as soon as possible.
                       
                      We will reach the point soon, most likely this year, when more will have died from 9/11-related illnesses than on 9/11 itself, Schumer said Wednesday. I say to Leader McConnell: This is not politics. This is not a game. These are our heroes, American heroes, who are suffering and need our help. … I am imploring, pleading, even begging to Leader McConnell to put the bill on the floor immediately after it passes the House.
                       
                      Stewart won renewed attention for the cause of the sick and dying workers when he testified Tuesday, angrily telling lawmakers they should be ashamed for how they have failed to act to extend the program so those who are sick do not have to beg for help any longer.
                       
                      They did their jobs with courage, grace, tenacity, humility, Stewart said, fighting back tears. Eighteen years later, do yours!

                       
                       
                       
                       

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      September 11, 2020 at 5:06 am

                      [link=https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-fdny-911-health-program-treasury-20200910-s7yam67j6vhmhbdzg6ordanfdm-story.html]https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-fdny-911-health-program-treasury-20200910-s7yam67j6vhmhbdzg6ordanfdm-story.html[/link]

                      The Trump administration has secretly siphoned nearly $4 million away from a program that tracks and treats FDNY firefighters and medics suffering from 9/11 related illnesses.

                      The Trump administration has secretly siphoned nearly $4 million away from a program that tracks and treats FDNY firefighters and medics suffering from 9/11 related illnesses, the Daily News has learned.

                      The Treasury Department mysteriously started withholding parts of payments nearly four years ago meant to cover medical services for firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics treated by the FDNY World Trade Center Health Program, documents obtained by The News reveal.

                      The payments were authorized and made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which oversees the program. But instead of sending the funds to the city, the Treasury started keeping some of the money.
                      [/QUOTE]

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 23, 2010 at 9:08 am

                      ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                      ORIGINAL: nobody2008

                      ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                      Second, as usual, Nobody only gives part of the story, and misses the point. The bill now increases some excise taxes to pay for the bill. Republicans don’t want any more taxes, only spending cuts.

                      No, you were being either duplicitous or lying by claiming the Dems don’t care about the budget. The bill is paid for. Period. That was the point.

                      OK. MOST Dems don’t care about the budget. And the initial bill was not paid for at all. Only when Republicans pushed did they find a way to pay for it. So as usual, it is you being duplicitous.

                      Makes no sense. If Dems cared nothing for the budget then they would never have been hung with, “Tax and Spend” Democrats. your argument + that label are oxymorons together because if they cared nothing for the budget increasing they would never propose increasing taxes to pay for their programs. If you use Reagan as the example I will counter with the republican mythology that tax cuts were supposed to have generated much more revenue than the tax cuts cut. If the myth were true then spending would never have had to be cut since the tax cuts would have generated a surplus of revenue.

                      The 2nd example showing your opinion is hogwash is that under Democratic Presidents (not suffering from a huge Depression/Recession) have year-for-year decreased the deficit with Clinton creating a surplus for 2 years before his term ended. It is the Republicans who then took that surplus & returned us back to a deep deficit. The only times a Republican Congress lowers the deficit is when a Democrat sits in the President’s seat.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 23, 2010 at 10:18 am

                      Another example of Republicans’ true colors showing (not to mention the Orwellian gymnastics they’ll go through to hide it from future voters):

                      http://washingtonindependent.com/90457/tom-coburn-objects-to-bill-to-provide-benefits-to-homeless

                      In his zeal for deficit reduction, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has objected to Sen. Patty Murrays (D-Wash.) bill to provide benefits to homeless woman veterans and homeless veterans with children:
                      If we dont start paying for new programs and continue on our path to bankruptcy well have a homelessness problem beyond imagination, Coburn spokesman John Hart told HuffPost. The old Washington excuse that its too hard to cut spending is undermining our troops, our veterans and our future.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 23, 2010 at 11:53 am

                      Frumi, Democrats don’t tax and spend to balance the budget. They tax and spend so they can spend even more.

                      And the last Dem President to balance the budget had to be brought kicking and screaming by a GOP Congress. He had a Dem congress for two years, with GDP growth rates at 4%…and did nothing about deficits. So your argument, not mine, is hogwash.

                      And you will note…I made a point of specifically stating DEMOCRAT CONGRESSES…I think Obama, working with a Republican Congress, could get closer to a balanced budget.

                      Democrats controlling both ends of PA ave…Repubs. the same. They are a disaster. Balanced budgets will ONLY happen with divided power. And we have a chance at that now.

                      And you guys, by your attitude on spending, are simply proving my point, over and over again. The more you talk, the more you convince me I am right.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 23, 2010 at 4:21 pm

                      ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                      Frumi, Democrats don’t tax and spend to balance the budget. They tax and spend so they can spend even more.

                      And the last Dem President to balance the budget had to be brought kicking and screaming by a GOP Congress. He had a Dem congress for two years, with GDP growth rates at 4%…and did nothing about deficits. So your argument, not mine, is hogwash.

                      And you will note…I made a point of specifically stating DEMOCRAT CONGRESSES…I think Obama, working with a Republican Congress, could get closer to a balanced budget.

                      Democrats controlling both ends of PA ave…Repubs. the same. They are a disaster. Balanced budgets will ONLY happen with divided power. And we have a chance at that now.

                      And you guys, by your attitude on spending, are simply proving my point, over and over again. The more you talk, the more you convince me I am right.

                      Even if they tax to spend more they are taxing to pay for the higher spending & not borrowing, so they must be more aware of the bottom line. republicans on the other hand have had the philosophy since the late 1980’s early 1990’s of “Starve the Beast” in order to drown government in a little bathtub. This is not exactly a quietly kept secret or a democratic invention. And it was a Republican who infamously said, “Deficits don’t matter,” not a Democrat.

                      It was Clinton who ran his campaign on the economy & deficit reduction (It’s the economy, stupid!), ran his Administration on the same platform so that the bond market would be positive (the “Ragin-Cajun” himself said he wanted to be reborn as the bond market with all the attention paid to it) and after getting clobbered in 1994 came up with “triangulation.” As for being “dragged,” as I recall Newt called Clinton irrelevant, period, and tried to run him over and ignore him completely. Newt with a neutered President (he thought) proceeded with a government shutdown in order to get his way with the budget proposals trying to force Clinton to accept the Republican budget cuts. Newt failed & Clinton took welfare reform as his own with less drastic cuts than the Republican’s & won the argument signing in 1996. Newt left & Clinton went on with a strong economy as a result of his policies so that he had a surplus in the last 2 years of his Administration. so much for “dragged.”

                      As for “only 4%,” I thought you had said on several other occasions that the recession was over by the time Clinton won the 1992 election? How could that be if he’s growing “only” at 4%? I do recall his tax increase in 1993 definitely benefited the economy & tax receipts proving Republican’s predictions as 100% false. Again, he gave Bush a surplus & the Fed was predicting the deficit to be essentially gone by the end of 2010. But that was before Bush’s & the Republican Congress’s economy.

                      And how was Obama supposed to get a balanced budget with either Democratic or Republican Congress when inheriting a still collapsing economy? The Republicans know a secret way to spin gold from straw?

                      Attitude on spending? We’re the ones concerned about the deficit & policies returning to a strong economy. the growth we have is from no help from Republicans since they opposed everything, and I mean everything until this past 6 weeks. Republicans called the 1st Responders & the Vets, “Heroes” & have an obligation to repay their sacrifice, even if that means raising taxes. If you don’t intend to repay the debt, don’t take out the debt. Republicans have been willing to throw anyone under the bus in order to not repay borrowed debt.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 23, 2010 at 7:04 pm

                      Clinton spent the first two years of his Presidency spending MORE, even with a relatively good economy. So you can argue anything you want, but I was there on Congress, working for a Democrat at the time. And Democrats had NO INTEREST in talking about deficit control None. Zero. The words were rarely ever spoken on the hill until after the 94 election. So believe your delusions, but they are simply not true.

                      Clinton deserves a lot of credit for coming to the middle. I voted for him in 1996 because of that. But that does not mean the bulk of Democrats deserve any credit.

                      Democrats opposed virtually every spending control Republicans tried after 1994. When they wanted to freeze spending, Democrats balked. They tried to filibuster the spending freeze…you conveniently forgot that. When they tried to freeze (not cut, mind you) school lunch program, Democrats came out and accused Republcans of killing children. Literally.

                      Obama has the potential to be the next Clinton. a President who balks at his own Party’s ignorance, and tries to balance the budget, like Clinton. But Democrats? Very few people in this country believe that they can be trusted with the pocketbook, especially after the last 4 years. Keep trying to convince people…you are fighting an uphill battle.

                      But you can try to fool yourself, with facts that don’t add up. I worked for a Dem Congresswoman at the time, and I know what went on. And you are simply wrong on every level.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 24, 2010 at 5:33 am

                      The problem with your memory is the filtering that goes on. 10-15 years from now you will precisely remember that the Democrats and Obama also had no interest in controlling the deficit while it was the Republicans who wanted deficit control. You will filter out the inconvenient facts and data of the recession.

                      And on the topic of where this thread started, Obama, Pelosi & Reid and Gillibrand did an outstanding job getting the 9-11 first responder’s bill passed. And their job this lame duck session? Pretty impressive.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      December 24, 2010 at 8:52 am

                      No filtering. I worked very closely with my employer, a Dem Congresswoman. she and her caucus were adamant that Republicans were actually going to kill children because of their policies on welfare reform. I literally heard these statements.

                      That is one reason why I became a Republican.

                      And Obama did a spectacular job in the lame duck. It was impressive. It won’t help for the next election, but it will give him momentum for the new year if he plans on working with Republicans. The only real losers was the extreme left, who got crushed by the Bush tax cut extensions. Moderate Dems won the day.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 22, 2010 at 7:22 am

                      ORIGINAL: Raddocmed

                      This has nothing to do with balancing the budget. The house plan was paid for completely by closing a tax loophole. The GOP objected to closisng the loophole. They wanted it funded from some other means. The total bill was 6.2 billion. The least we could do for these guys and girls is pay for their care after what they did for us.

                      DING DING DING!!

                      The Senate version is paid for as well. MISTRAD is spouting ill informed nonsense straight from the GOP propaganda machine and passing himself off as a moderate. As usual.

        • waltermfernandesyahoo.com.br

          Member
          December 25, 2010 at 9:04 pm

          ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

          LOL.

          You guys are really funny. You talk about budget deficits, and then don’t want this to be budget neutral. All Republicans want is offsets. They support the funding. But because they ask for paying for this, instead of defict spending, they are heartless.

          This is exactly why Democrats will never be able to balance a budget if they control Congress, ever.

          Ummm, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Clinton – I think he was a Democrat. Thats within “ever” isn’t it?

          • ruszja

            Member
            December 25, 2010 at 10:24 pm

            I spent a lot of time in NYC during the cleanup and knew people working for the demolition companies involved. There was a fair amount of tension between the cleanup professionals who worked the site and the cops and firefighters who basically refused to step back and let them do their jobs. I have no doubt that some of the pulmonary damage is a result of fiber inhalation, but I also suspect that most of that damage happened in the months after the collapse and not during the initial ‘first response’ period. 

          • jquinones8812_854

            Member
            December 26, 2010 at 7:34 am

            ORIGINAL: Tuff Gong

            ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

            LOL.

            You guys are really funny. You talk about budget deficits, and then don’t want this to be budget neutral. All Republicans want is offsets. They support the funding. But because they ask for paying for this, instead of defict spending, they are heartless.

            This is exactly why Democrats will never be able to balance a budget if they control Congress, ever.

            Ummm, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Clinton – I think he was a Democrat. Thats within “ever” isn’t it?

            You didn’t read…I specifically have been taking about CONGRESSIONAL Dems…that is why I have Obama could work with Repubs and cut the debt.

            • waltermfernandesyahoo.com.br

              Member
              December 27, 2010 at 8:33 am

              OK then.
               
              Democrats had majority in congress 1956 and 1957 – Eisenhower president: balanced budget
               
              Democrats had majority in congress 1969 – LBJ president: balanced budget.
               
              Still never, EVER?
               
               

              • jquinones8812_854

                Member
                December 27, 2010 at 9:08 am

                Fine, I will give you 1969. That year, there was approx 3 billion surplus…fair enough.

                The Ike example, partially supports me. Dems were in charge of the Congress. Again, divided leadership.

                So fine, not EVER. Just most of the time. Again, probabilities are very much on my side.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    February 11, 2022 at 6:06 am

    [link=https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-united-states-terrorism-b2743737c3286dbba95a7663615e37be]Biden to split frozen Afghan funds between 9/11 victims and humanitarian relief

    [/link]

    President Joe Biden is expected to issue an executive order on Friday to move some $7 billion of the Afghan central banks assets frozen in the U.S. banking system to fund humanitarian relief in Afghanistan and compensate victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to a U.S. official familiar with the decision.
     
     
    The order will require U.S. financial institutions to facilitate access to $3.5 billion of assets for Afghan relief and basic needs. The other $3.5 billion would remain in the United States and be used to fund ongoing litigation by U.S. victims of terrorism, the official said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision had not been formally announced.
     
    International funding to Afghanistan was suspended and billions of dollars of the countrys assets abroad, mostly in the United States, were frozen after [link=https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-kabul-bagram-e1ed33fe0c665ee67ba132c51b8e32a5]the Taliban took control of the country[/link] in mid-August.

    [/QUOTE]
     

    • kaldridgewv2211

      Member
      February 11, 2022 at 11:46 am

      should be going to vets too.  Like the people who are really sick, or families of people who died because of burn pits.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    July 31, 2022 at 1:13 pm

    [link=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/07/jon-stewart-pact-act-veterans-republicans] America Is F*cked: Jon Stewart Trashes Republicans for Voting against Veteran Healthcare Bill.[/h3] [/link]
     
     
     
     
    Republicans havent met a veteran they wont screw over, the former [i]Daily Show[/i] host said Thursday, while trashing the GOP for blocking a bill that would, among other things, expand health care for members of the military diagnosed with rare cancers as a result of their service.
     
    _____
     
    Following a series of tweets in which the comedian and activist called out Senator [b]Pat Toomey[/b]who was instrumental in killing the bill[link=https://twitter.com/jonstewart/status/1552428715782684673]writing[/link], Congratulations @SenToomey You successfully used the Byzantine Senate rules to keep sick veterans suffering!!!! Kudos! Im sure youll celebrate by kicking a dog or punching a babyor whatever terrible people do for fun!!!!! Stewart spoke at a press conference on Thursday to further lay into Republicans.
     
    Aint this a b*tch, Stewart said. Americas heroes, who fought in our wars, outside sweating their asses offbattling all kinds of ailments, while these motherfuckers sit in the air conditioning, walled off from any of it. They dont have to hear it, they dont have to see it. They dont have to understand that these are human beings. Im used to the lies, Im used to the hypocrisy. Senate is where accountability goes to die. Im used to all of it. But I am not used to cruelty.
     
    He continued: [Republicans] havent met a war they wont sign up for, and they havent met a veteran they wont screw over. Now they say, Well, this will get done, maybe after we get back from our summer recess, maybe during the lame duck. Because theyre on Senate time. Senate time is ridiculous. These motherfuckers live to 200. Theyre tortoises. They live forever and they never lose their jobs and they never lose their benefits and they never lose all those things. Well, [veterans] arent on Senate time, theyre on human time. This is an embarrassment to the Senate, to the country, to the founders, and all that they profess to hold dear. And if this is America First, then America is f*cked. 
     
     

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      July 31, 2022 at 3:37 pm

      Republicans are Pro military

      • kaldridgewv2211

        Member
        July 31, 2022 at 7:04 pm

        Not sure if anyone follows the LIV golf stuff. Bad looks when the clown crowd there is chanting lets go Brandon at an event funded by the people who chopped up a journalist and played a role in bringing down the towers.

        Side note. It looks like he buried Ivana on his golf course to avoid taxes. Hopefully the super marked it as ground under repair.

        • btomba_77

          Member
          August 1, 2022 at 5:35 am

          Quote from DICOM_Dan

          Not sure if anyone follows the LIV golf stuff. Bad looks when the clown crowd there is chanting lets go Brandon at an event funded by the people who chopped up a journalist and played a role in bringing down the towers.

          Trump, the Saudis, and the deplorables … a perfect match for golf.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    August 1, 2022 at 5:34 am

    [h1]Schumer to hold Another Burn Pits Bill Vote This Week[/h1]  
    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Sunday he intends to put a health care bill for military veterans exposed to deadly toxins up for a vote again this week after 41 Republicans senators blocked it, the [link=https://nypost.com/2022/07/31/chuck-schumer-said-he-will-tee-up-vets-health-care-bill-for-another-vote-this-week/]New York Post[/link] reports.
     
    [link=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/08/01/dems-plow-ahead-on-reconciliation-00048892?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f0ed-dd93-ad7f-f8edad790000&nlid=630318]Playbook[/link]: Their opposition ostensibly because they wanted to vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), but difficult to divorce from the broader context of Democrats breakthrough on reconciliation talks has spurred swift and widespread backlash, with veterans and advocates for the bill (the loudest and most famous among them being Jon Stewart) torching the senators in viral condemnations and TV hits.