July 30th, 2010, 09:39 AM #1
Republicans Kill Medical Funding for 9/11 VictimsCongress turned thumbs down on the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act on Thursday night, raising doubts it will ever pass.
Most Republicans refused to back the measure, calling it a "slush fund," and saying it was another example of Democratic overreach and an "insatiable" appetite for taxpayers' money.
The bill would spend $3.2 billion on health care over the next 10 years for people sickened from their exposure to the toxic smoke and debris of the shattered World Trade Center. It would spend another $4.2 billion to compensate victims over that span, and make another $4.2 billion in compensation available for the next 11 years.
"This legislation as written creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud and waste," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), arguing that it would be raided by undeserving scammers with tenuous links to 9/11.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) cast it as a money grab for New York because the bill would pay for care at higher rates than Medicare. "What this is is politics," Shimkus said. "What this is is enfranchising a bunch of New York City hospitals."
"This fund is bloated," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
Texas Republican Joe Barton, leading debate for his side, said the GOP would back a smaller program, such as the $150 million a year the White House would like to spend. But he said the rest of the country should not bear the brunt of helping New Yorkers cope with the aftermath of the terror attacks.
The border crossing between Whitetail, Montana, and the Canadian province of Saskatchewan isn't what you'd call bustling. On most days, the checkpoint in this sleepy town, pop. 110, sees between two and five vehicles. Given the porousness of America's borders with Mexico, this lonely outpost hardly seems like a high priority when it comes to national security. But when Congress passed its $787 billion economic stimulus bill last year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided that the Whitetail checkpoint needed an upgrade. Not just a new sign or a fresh coat of paint but a total rehab. Price tag: $15 million.
Another border crossing in nearby Scobey also got a stimulus-bill upgrade. Compared with Whitetail, Scobey is like Times Square: One local estimated that a whopping 20 cars per day pass through that checkpoint. And yet you still have to wonder how the cost--another $15 million--could possibly be justified.
It turns out these two remote border stations were just the beginning. All told, the stimulus bill contained over $200 million for 22 Canadian checkpoints, which see an average of four cars and one truck per hour, says Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND). “It is an unbelievable waste of taxpayer money,” Dorgan added after blowing the whistle on the plan last year.
Last edited by Theophylact; July 30th, 2010 at 09:41 AM.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
July 30th, 2010, 10:21 AM #2
Wouldn't Obamacare cover it? Or because it's a pre-existing condition it's not covered?
July 30th, 2010, 01:06 PM #3
Those evil Republicans with their rock solid majority..."Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
July 30th, 2010, 01:39 PM #4
Lib Dems need the opposition (i.e. scapegoats) alive and around when their policies turn out to be the crap historically they've always been.
July 30th, 2010, 01:44 PM #5
Democrats would have been able to pass the bill if they used the normal procedure, but they brought it up as a "suspension bill," which needs a two-thirds vote to pass because it can't be amended. Democrats feared the GOP would attach poison pills to the bill.
It failed 255 to 159, with just 12 Republicans backing it.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
July 30th, 2010, 01:58 PM #6
Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner noted that 94 percent of all House Democrats voted for the bill, which would have provided free health care and compensation payments to rescue and recovery workers who fell ill after working at Ground Zero after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Hmm, there are 255 Democrats in the House, so ~240 of them voted for the bill and ~15 did not. sounds more like the Democrats couldn't get their act together, but who would want to be fair?"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
July 30th, 2010, 02:33 PM #7
Do the numbers. There are 435 members of the House. 178 of those are Republicans. There are currently two vacancies. If all 255 Democrats had voted for it and the 12 Republicans who voted for it did as well, that would produce 267 votes for the bill. 267/435 = 61.4%, nowhere near 2/3.
Last edited by Theophylact; July 30th, 2010 at 02:36 PM. Reason: numbers correctedI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
July 30th, 2010, 02:35 PM #8
60.9% is nowhere near 66.7%? Whoda thunk..."Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
July 30th, 2010, 02:38 PM #9
RADAR1797, close doesn't count except with horseshoes and hand grenades. Poor Al Gore lost the election by one vote, in the Supreme Court.
Anyway, I was answering voogru's question, since arithmetic seems to be beyond him as well.
Last edited by Theophylact; July 30th, 2010 at 02:44 PM.
July 30th, 2010, 02:49 PM #10
Well, I suppose you can still be bitter about a 10 year old election, but revising history won't make it any more true. Bottom line, the Democrats in the House decided the tactics for putting this bill up for vote and they decided poorly. It seems more fault of Democrat incompetence than Republican denial.
July 30th, 2010, 04:29 PM #11
I just listened to Rep Wiener and Rep King discuss this goat stupe. So it only takes 218 votes for the bill to pass the House, they had 255. But in order to prevent any amendments from being entered, they used a procedure requiring 290 votes and surprise, they couldn't get 45+ Republicans to go with them. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Yeah, blame the Republicans for this.
July 30th, 2010, 04:40 PM #12
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
I have to agree with Radar on this one. If the Democrats actually wanted to get it passed, they should have done so in a manner that guaranteed passage. What they did is play politics with people's health to score some emotional points from their constituency. Seems to have worked.Good job, friend-of-friends!
July 30th, 2010, 06:04 PM #13
Out of one side of their mouths they bitch about bills that are too long (e.g. zOMG it's 2,000 pages long) and have pork added to them. Out of the other side of their mouths they moan that they should be allowed to make the bill longer and add pork to it. What a world.
According to someone close to the strategy sessions preceding the floor vote, House Democrats decided to call for a suspension of normal House rules on the Zadroga bill.
When the rules are suspended, amendments cannot be added, debate is limited to 40 minutes and, instead of the usual majority vote needed for passage, a two-thirds majority is required.
The reasoning behind the call for a rules suspension vote, according to the source, was that, with the August recess approaching and numerous items on the House agenda, the guarantee of little debate and no amendments would allow the bill to come quickly to the floor, which it did.
However, Congressman King, a co-sponsor who voted for the bill, called the rules suspension maneuver "indefensible," claiming the Democrats did it only to make Republicans look bad to constituents for not backing a measure to help 9/11 victims.
But Democrats said they invoked the suspension of normal rules to get the measure passed before the ninth anniversary of 9/11.
July 30th, 2010, 06:17 PM #14
Voting against it looks bad? Right?
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
You have two options: Either the Democrats connived to force the Republicans into a position that "looks bad" and defeat their own measure in the process, or they didn't have the foresight to realize the Republicans would attempt to block and that their own members cannot all be accounted for.
So, are they conniving or just dumb?Good job, friend-of-friends!
July 30th, 2010, 07:01 PM #15
Sometimes I wonder why even debate things we can't and will never have a chance of changing .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtab0BKOGY
The Nation which forgets it's defenders will itself be forgotten
You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them–wipe them out!
July 30th, 2010, 07:07 PM #16
July 30th, 2010, 07:28 PM #17
July 30th, 2010, 07:55 PM #18Originally Posted by Theo
Dispelling the Myth of Election 2000: Did Nader Cost Gore the Election?
According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes. It is noteworthy that every third-party candidate received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
July 30th, 2010, 08:25 PM #19
Oh, no. I don't think Nader cost Gore Florida.
The vote in Florida was screwed up in many ways, any one of which could have given Gore the state -- the absentee military ballots that were counted even though they were posted too late (thank you, Joe Lieberman, for "standing up" for our servicemen), the miscounted votes for Pat Buchanan in a Jewish district that never would have voted for an antiSemite like him, the discounted double votes for Gore that any fool would have recognized as valid, et patati et patata. Not even counting the bloc of votes for Gore that just vanished or the Diebold machines that produced more votes for Bush than existed in the county.
What cost Gore the state was the fact that George Bush's brother was Governor, and the Secretary of State was Bush's campaign manager, and the Supreme Court was desirous of a specific outcome. Period.
July 30th, 2010, 08:42 PM #20
You have facts to back up those claims? If not, I have a tinfoil hat for you.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Taxmancometh in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 11Last Post: August 12th, 2009, 02:51 PM
By Gait_Keeper in forum Applications and Operating SystemsReplies: 5Last Post: January 4th, 2004, 11:53 PM
By fatal xception in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 18Last Post: February 25th, 2003, 07:58 PM