[quote]Ratchet wrote:continueing a tax cut does not cost money…
[/quote]
Yes, it does. When you already have a structural deficit, a tax cut that is not paid for (as Bush’s original cuts were not, and this one is not) is fungibly equivalent to additional spending.
Try as they might, the republicans have not been able to repeal arithmetic.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Swole,
I sympathize with what you saw, and your buddy. But you pointed the blame at Republicans when it was not their choice as to how the porkulus money was spent. I would have no issue at all at having money to help the 9/11 heroes, but because of foolish spending choices (blame your Democrats for that, yes they owned all 3 bodies of government), we are not able to allocate the money for this.[/quote]
Wrong. We can just add it to the deficit, like we did the wars, and the tax cuts. It costs a lot less than these, as well.
Like two wars that Americans are against? Or propping up drug lords and corrupt foreign politicians?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Swole,
I sympathize with what you saw, and your buddy. But you pointed the blame at Republicans when it was not their choice as to how the porkulus money was spent. I would have no issue at all at having money to help the 9/11 heroes, but because of foolish spending choices (blame your Democrats for that, yes they owned all 3 bodies of government), we are not able to allocate the money for this.
I would be MUCH more comfortable knowing my taxes went to help these people, rather than building roads to nowhere, studying Polynesian honeybee migration patterns, or whatever worthless bullshit that our money went to. [/quote]
You think the Republicans are blocking this because they don’t think they can find money? Sorry dude, where have you been? They are blocking it on the principles.
And I thought you were against government handouts? So why in this case would you support it [if the money was there]? It seems that for the 9/11 responders, you are making an exception to the principles you adhere to.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Bite my dick. The Republicans are abusing procedural rules to force their agenda.
[/quote]
Yes, the agenda of NO MORE SPENDING!
People. These guys are not left out in the cold. They get their medical bills paid and get the best treatment. This is not their complaint though. They are treated no differently than our war heros.
I don’t like that they are seeking monetary compensation. If so, then every person who ever sacrificed their lives or got injured on a job should also be compensated…then the can of worms is open.
Life is not fair. In addition to that FACT…they took the job that they know that everyday, they could die. They know they will see life threatening events daily. I appreciate them, but at the end of that sacrifice, they also get 100% pay after they retire which is sucking our system dry. Let’s compensate the Pearl Harbor survivors too, Gulf War syndrome vets, and anyone injured due to serving in their job.
Hell, I’m due for some money too!
This needs to be handled through a charitable donation advertised and supported by the departments for which they served!
Many people lost their lives in the attack, but do we want to set a precedent that the government is responsible for any and all sicknesses due to responding to an event in the coarse of your job? We are already 1/2 way there. This will take us all the way into the notion that “Government is our Daddy, our God, and responsible for me, my life, my job and my life outcome”.
I don’t accept that, no matter what the circumstance.
[/quote]
This is a very good post.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Swole,
I sympathize with what you saw, and your buddy. But you pointed the blame at Republicans when it was not their choice as to how the porkulus money was spent. I would have no issue at all at having money to help the 9/11 heroes, but because of foolish spending choices (blame your Democrats for that, yes they owned all 3 bodies of government), we are not able to allocate the money for this.[/quote]
Wrong. We can just add it to the deficit, like we did the wars, and the tax cuts. It costs a lot less than these, as well.[/quote]
Exactly. This is not an issue of money.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Bite my dick. The Republicans are abusing procedural rules to force their agenda.
[/quote]
Yes, the agenda of NO MORE SPENDING!
People. These guys are not left out in the cold. They get their medical bills paid and get the best treatment. This is not their complaint though. They are treated no differently than our war heros.
I don’t like that they are seeking monetary compensation. If so, then every person who ever sacrificed their lives or got injured on a job should also be compensated…then the can of worms is open.
Life is not fair. In addition to that FACT…they took the job that they know that everyday, they could die. They know they will see life threatening events daily. I appreciate them, but at the end of that sacrifice, they also get 100% pay after they retire which is sucking our system dry. Let’s compensate the Pearl Harbor survivors too, Gulf War syndrome vets, and anyone injured due to serving in their job.
Hell, I’m due for some money too!
This needs to be handled through a charitable donation advertised and supported by the departments for which they served!
Many people lost their lives in the attack, but do we want to set a precedent that the government is responsible for any and all sicknesses due to responding to an event in the coarse of your job? We are already 1/2 way there. This will take us all the way into the notion that “Government is our Daddy, our God, and responsible for me, my life, my job and my life outcome”.
I don’t accept that, no matter what the circumstance.
[/quote]
Very good post.
One question if their medical bills and treatment is payed for why was this bill even made?
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Bite my dick. The Republicans are abusing procedural rules to force their agenda.
[/quote]
Yes, the agenda of NO MORE SPENDING!
People. These guys are not left out in the cold. They get their medical bills paid and get the best treatment. This is not their complaint though. They are treated no differently than our war heros.
I don’t like that they are seeking monetary compensation. If so, then every person who ever sacrificed their lives or got injured on a job should also be compensated…then the can of worms is open.
Life is not fair. In addition to that FACT…they took the job that they know that everyday, they could die. They know they will see life threatening events daily. I appreciate them, but at the end of that sacrifice, they also get 100% pay after they retire which is sucking our system dry. Let’s compensate the Pearl Harbor survivors too, Gulf War syndrome vets, and anyone injured due to serving in their job.
Hell, I’m due for some money too!
This needs to be handled through a charitable donation advertised and supported by the departments for which they served!
Many people lost their lives in the attack, but do we want to set a precedent that the government is responsible for any and all sicknesses due to responding to an event in the coarse of your job? We are already 1/2 way there. This will take us all the way into the notion that “Government is our Daddy, our God, and responsible for me, my life, my job and my life outcome”.
I don’t accept that, no matter what the circumstance.
[/quote]
Very good post.
One question if their medical bills and treatment is payed for why was this bill even made?
[/quote]
It’s a supplement to life insurance, where the money comes before you die…to spend while you are still living, in addition to the life insurance the cops, fire and Local governments carry as a standard. Otherwise, their medical insurance as employees is taking care of them and will even after retirement.
It really does suck that this happened, but it’s a job hazard for police and fire… and always has been.
It’s like if I sued my company for getting injured while traveling in a car on the way to a meeting. I could wreck as a part of my job, but is it the governments responsibility to compensate me for my injuries? What if I decided to pull a burning baby from a wrecked car and got cancer from the fumes…who do I sue? Why would I sue when under my own will I decided to take such a risk?
You’re not a firefighter are you Rockscar?
This situation is a rock and a hard place.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You’re not a firefighter are you Rockscar?
This situation is a rock and a hard place.[/quote]
Why would it make a difference if I’m a firefighter or not?
I agree with the second statement, but it should not be an issue in the first place. Blame Muslim Extremists and get their money.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Swole,
I sympathize with what you saw, and your buddy. But you pointed the blame at Republicans when it was not their choice as to how the porkulus money was spent. I would have no issue at all at having money to help the 9/11 heroes, but because of foolish spending choices (blame your Democrats for that, yes they owned all 3 bodies of government), we are not able to allocate the money for this.
I would be MUCH more comfortable knowing my taxes went to help these people, rather than building roads to nowhere, studying Polynesian honeybee migration patterns, or whatever worthless bullshit that our money went to. [/quote]
You think the Republicans are blocking this because they don’t think they can find money? Sorry dude, where have you been? They are blocking it on the principles.
And I thought you were against government handouts? So why in this case would you support it [if the money was there]? It seems that for the 9/11 responders, you are making an exception to the principles you adhere to.[/quote]
Because if I lived in NYC, I would have been down there trying to help somehow. This could very well be the only way I could help, with my money, BUT SINCE I DON"T CONTROL HOW IT IS SPENT I CAN’T NOW CAN I.
Stop being so one-sided, I had to pay for banks and wall street, I want a perfect trifecta.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You’re not a firefighter are you Rockscar?
This situation is a rock and a hard place.[/quote]
Why would it make a difference if I’m a firefighter or not?
I agree with the second statement, but it should not be an issue in the first place. Blame Muslim Extremists and get their money.[/quote]
You said about rescuing from a car fire. That was your choice, those people at 9/11 were working doing there jobs. So you statement is apples and oranges.
I"m sure the Saudis could throw a few million barrels at their healthcare expenses.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Bite my dick. The Republicans are abusing procedural rules to force their agenda.
[/quote]
Yes, the agenda of NO MORE SPENDING!
People. These guys are not left out in the cold. They get their medical bills paid and get the best treatment. This is not their complaint though. They are treated no differently than our war heros.
I don’t like that they are seeking monetary compensation. If so, then every person who ever sacrificed their lives or got injured on a job should also be compensated…then the can of worms is open.
Life is not fair. In addition to that FACT…they took the job that they know that everyday, they could die. They know they will see life threatening events daily. I appreciate them, but at the end of that sacrifice, they also get 100% pay after they retire which is sucking our system dry. Let’s compensate the Pearl Harbor survivors too, Gulf War syndrome vets, and anyone injured due to serving in their job.
Hell, I’m due for some money too!
This needs to be handled through a charitable donation advertised and supported by the departments for which they served!
Many people lost their lives in the attack, but do we want to set a precedent that the government is responsible for any and all sicknesses due to responding to an event in the coarse of your job? We are already 1/2 way there. This will take us all the way into the notion that “Government is our Daddy, our God, and responsible for me, my life, my job and my life outcome”.
I don’t accept that, no matter what the circumstance.
[/quote]
Very good post.
One question if their medical bills and treatment is payed for why was this bill even made?
[/quote]
It’s a supplement to life insurance, where the money comes before you die…to spend while you are still living, in addition to the life insurance the cops, fire and Local governments carry as a standard. Otherwise, their medical insurance as employees is taking care of them and will even after retirement.
It really does suck that this happened, but it’s a job hazard for police and fire… and always has been.
It’s like if I sued my company for getting injured while traveling in a car on the way to a meeting. I could wreck as a part of my job, but is it the governments responsibility to compensate me for my injuries? What if I decided to pull a burning baby from a wrecked car and got cancer from the fumes…who do I sue? Why would I sue when under my own will I decided to take such a risk?
[/quote]
Actually, it’s considerably more complicated than that.
Some of the first responders’ health coverage is running out. This bill offers a supplement to that.
Additionally, many of these first responders are being forced to retire VERY early because of illnesses arising from toxins at ground zero. The other purpose of this bill is to provide essentially a supplemental retirement fun.
What’s even more compelling is that the $7 billion required by the bill is funded within the first 5 years by a loop hole in the corporate tax code that it closes.
When asked why they were filibustering the bill at least two Republican Senators, Brownback and Ensign, confirmed that the reason was that they had vowed to block ALL legislation until the extensions of the Bush tax cuts was confirmed… Seriously, what a bunch of fucking cocks.
This is who your Republican Senators are… they are self-absorbed, out of touch assholes who are more dedicated to winning than to doing the right thing.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Bite my dick. The Republicans are abusing procedural rules to force their agenda.
[/quote]
Yes, the agenda of NO MORE SPENDING!
People. These guys are not left out in the cold. They get their medical bills paid and get the best treatment. This is not their complaint though. They are treated no differently than our war heros.
I don’t like that they are seeking monetary compensation. If so, then every person who ever sacrificed their lives or got injured on a job should also be compensated…then the can of worms is open.
Life is not fair. In addition to that FACT…they took the job that they know that everyday, they could die. They know they will see life threatening events daily. I appreciate them, but at the end of that sacrifice, they also get 100% pay after they retire which is sucking our system dry. Let’s compensate the Pearl Harbor survivors too, Gulf War syndrome vets, and anyone injured due to serving in their job.
Hell, I’m due for some money too!
This needs to be handled through a charitable donation advertised and supported by the departments for which they served!
Many people lost their lives in the attack, but do we want to set a precedent that the government is responsible for any and all sicknesses due to responding to an event in the coarse of your job? We are already 1/2 way there. This will take us all the way into the notion that “Government is our Daddy, our God, and responsible for me, my life, my job and my life outcome”.
I don’t accept that, no matter what the circumstance.
[/quote]
Very good post.
One question if their medical bills and treatment is payed for why was this bill even made?
[/quote]
It’s a supplement to life insurance, where the money comes before you die…to spend while you are still living, in addition to the life insurance the cops, fire and Local governments carry as a standard. Otherwise, their medical insurance as employees is taking care of them and will even after retirement.
It really does suck that this happened, but it’s a job hazard for police and fire… and always has been.
It’s like if I sued my company for getting injured while traveling in a car on the way to a meeting. I could wreck as a part of my job, but is it the governments responsibility to compensate me for my injuries? What if I decided to pull a burning baby from a wrecked car and got cancer from the fumes…who do I sue? Why would I sue when under my own will I decided to take such a risk?
[/quote]
Actually, it’s considerably more complicated than that.
Some of the first responders’ health coverage is running out. This bill offers a supplement to that.
Additionally, many of these first responders are being forced to retire VERY early because of illnesses arising from toxins at ground zero. The other purpose of this bill is to provide essentially a supplemental retirement fun.
What’s even more compelling is that the $7 billion required by the bill is funded within the first 5 years by a loop hole in the corporate tax code that it closes.
When asked why they were filibustering the bill at least two Republican Senators, Brownback and Ensign, confirmed that the reason was that they had vowed to block ALL legislation until the extensions of the Bush tax cuts was confirmed… Seriously, what a bunch of fucking cocks.
This is who your Republican Senators are… they are self-absorbed, out of touch assholes who are more dedicated to winning than to doing the right thing.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
When asked why they were filibustering the bill at least two Republican Senators, Brownback and Ensign, confirmed that the reason was that they had vowed to block ALL legislation until the extensions of the Bush tax cuts was confirmed… Seriously, what a bunch of fucking cocks.
This is who your Republican Senators are… they are self-absorbed, out of touch assholes who are more dedicated to winning than to doing the right thing.
[/quote]
They DID vow to strike down ALL legislation until that was done. Was this struck down before that?
Either way, if you define that as crooks then the other side is just as guilty if not, more. We need to really take care of business now, and the dems have been playing foul, so Reps play foul too in reaction. Dems tried the DADT (that act affects 15,000 people in the US Armed forces), Dream Act (Let’s pay for 20 Million Criminals Kids) all BEFORE the critical tax extension (Affects 500,000,000 Americans).
I will not call it a cut because it’s NOT. But either way, I do not support tax dollars for 9-11 for the same reasons I stated earlier.
Look for this 9-11 bill to come back soon.
I’ll be honest…
This topic makes me so fucking angry that I can’t think straight. My wife and I had to move West because I couldn’t even look at downtown NYC without freaking the fuck out.
I probably should not have even brought it up, so I’m going to step out of it… If I don’t I suspect I’ll just develop a ton of deep, unjustified resentments.
Fun fact : Jon Stewart is really the only “News” guy covering this bill even though its mainly cause he wants a vote for it. The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - Season 28 - TV Series | Comedy Central US
This is just for you guys who want the bill to pass or idk. I just think its relevant to the discussion at hand.
What I find funny in all of this is the obvious. When Republican’s decide to spend money, it is considered by them as “necessary,” and “important,” but when a Democratic president is elected, the spending, wherever it may be, is characterized very differently.
I do not consider myself on one team or the other. I would prefer to see what is best for the people, not the party, which is what all of this breaks down to.
Also, just a little fact, Bush is among the biggest spending in history. Regardless of the situations he was in, he spent a ton of money.
It would be nice if there was less party bullshit and more support for policies and funds for the people.
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
It would be nice if there was less party bullshit and more support for policies and funds for the people. [/quote]
Now there is the problem isn’t it?
Government should protect my rights and property and do as little as possible… not tax for “Funds for the people”. What are “Funds for the People?” They are all forms of welfare.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
It would be nice if there was less party bullshit and more support for policies and funds for the people. [/quote]
Now there is the problem isn’t it?
Government should protect my rights and property and do as little as possible… not tax for “Funds for the people”. What are “Funds for the People?” They are all forms of welfare.[/quote]
That is the problem.
One party isn’t any better than the other in my opinion if all they are doing is thinking of how to best block the other. Where do we fall in all of this?
I don’t have a problem with taxes, but I do have a problem when tax dollars are not spent of things that can directly improve the quality of life for the majority of American’s, not a select few.
Modern political parties = divide and conquer