WHY has this had to happen?

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rep...e-and-die-quic

Read it all, watch the video, discuss.

Lets add a little perspective.

First, the article repeatedly calls this a 9-11 responders bill. In my little mind, I think firemen and police...but not so fast. Turns out its for anybody who worked at ground zero. We're not talking about people running into the burning building. We're not exclusively talking about people who did search and rescue in the immediate aftermath. Nope, we are talking about up to 20,000 people who worked at the ground zero site.

The bill is for $11.6 billion, and would be for 20,000 people...over a half million a head.

As far as I can tell, the bill does not address people who died in the disaster...and in reality, very few people actually got injured (either you were dead or you weren't)....so its really people who were exposed to dust. So why call it a 9-11 responders fund at all? There are already funds for the families of those who died. There are also scholarship funds for the children of first responders who died....So what is this new half million per head for exactly? And who exactly would be the beneficiary of it? I think these are valid questions...and unless I'm missing something really big here, its very misleading to call it a 'responders' fund.

I've said it before - I am generally very skeptical of bills passed unanimously. I am also very skeptical of bills that are set up to throw alot of money at people 'in their name'. Its alot of money...should a construction worker really get a half mil for working at ground zero?

were was the money coming from to pay for it. I am sorry, I care about those people but we cant keep borrowing money to pay for shit. Show me cuts of 11 billion dollars and I will support the bill. Isnt that whats suppose to be happening? And I also appologize for you very sensative types but I dont get weepy eyes just because they attach 9/11 to something, tell me who is getting the money and why, its not first responders like Crew said.

To add a little political persepective here as well. If this was such an important piece of legislation for Mr. Weiner, and he had the support of the House leadership, then there's not a damn thing the Republicans could do to stop its passage. It's those Democratic representatives who (finally) hear the cries from their constituents to stop the reckless spending. I agree with DD, show the cuts and then pass the bill. They can also put a title on a bill that has nothing to do with the contents of the bill. For example, a rep could propose a bill legalizing the hobby and title it "The Civil Rights Act of 2010" - given that most reps don't read any legislation most would vote for it on the title of the bill alone.

...Hey - that's an idea.

"given that it had been structured to be paid for by closing a tax loophole for foreign corporations."

That's how it would have been paid for.

So...why again was this bill opposed? Because it gave Democrats something to crow about three months before an election. Politics.

20000 people from all over the country came together to help in the rescue and recovery efforts of the WTC disaster. As their country asked them to. Now we say to them "Fuck you!". For politics.

It's disgusting.

It's immoral.

It makes me want to puke.

By the way half a mil for a 40 year old guy who can't work anymore because his lungs are wrecked from breathing asbestos dust for six months in 2002 isn't much more than ten years of decent wages. Especially if he has to support a family.

Fritz,

The dems cannot pass it all by themselves. This is because it is on the suspension agenda...requiring a 2/3 majority vote. Why is it on the suspension agenda? It went to the floor with no ammendments allowed. Why no ammendments? Rep King from NY wanted to put forth an ammendment that no illegal immigrants 'exposed to dust' be eligible for this money...the dems said nope, not even gonna vote on that.

I didn't know there were 20,000 people permanently disabled by working at ground zero...make that 20,000 people permanently disabled, with no workman's comp insurance, and no health insurance...and apparently no forecasted access to healthcare in the future under the healthcare act.

In fact, this bill covers people who lived or worked NEAR ground zero...and were exposed to dust.

The truth of the matter is, this bill will pass, probably after King's ammendment gets added to it...but I'm still very curious about who these 20,000 people are, who have fallen through the cracks, and need help. Is the bill really allowing insurance companies to avoid fulfilling their obligations? Do people who worked near teh site deserve compensation?...and frankly, how much do we know about actual harm being caused by the dust.

I think these are valid questions, even if it makes me a bastard by asking them. You see, we are about to enter an era where we are not free to spend money like this. The credit rating services, and our creditors are already telling us: No More. Every time we have a spending bill with the word 'billion' in it, questions should be asked.

The dems cannot pass it all by themselves. This is because it is on the suspension agenda...requiring a 2/3 majority vote. Why is it on the suspension agenda? It went to the floor with no ammendments allowed. Why no ammendments? Rep King from NY wanted to put forth an ammendment that no illegal immigrants 'exposed to dust' be eligible for this money...the dems said nope, not even gonna vote on that. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Again, it was the dems who refused to allow the amendment. The house is controlled by the dems and they have the power to allow bills to be put to the floor for passage, and there is little the GOP can do about it.

Agreed Fritz...the dems can pass it if they want.

I just wanted to point out the disgusting, immoral, and puke provoking antics that the democrats were using with the bill:

1. Put if forth 'for the responders'

2. Attach a ridiculous provision the republicans will oppose (can you imagine the campaign ads during the primaries: Dick Head voted for health benefits for illegal aliens at ground zero)

3. Refuse ammendments so it will be 'blocked' by republicans

4. Display false outrage (maybe Weiner really was this frustrated - he did just get married )

5. And (I predict) the bill will pass in the end.

Its pure politics...done with a 9-11 tag attached...which actually makes my stomach turn.

All that aside, we still haven't looked past the label, to see what this bill even is.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-James Madison, drafter of the US Constitution

Agreed Fritz...the dems can pass it if they want. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Pass what? The bill that they voted on?

No, you're talking about a version of the bill with a poison pill that gives Republicans something to crow about right before the election. Care to explain what illegal Mexican immigrants have to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York?

Then would you care to explain why REPUBLICAN CRITIC Pete King voted FOR the bill? (hint: the answer is that he's a hypocrite, a Republican, a hypocrite, and a Republican.)

Just something to think about, from the life of Davy Crockett.



“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.”
“The next summer……… I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.”
“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-’
‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for your the last time your were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
I begged him to tell me what was the matter.”
“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me…….”
“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.”
“No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”
“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”
“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer his is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose…..”


Taken from “The Life of Colonel David Crockett, compiled by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia; Porter; Coates, 1884, via Freely Thinking.com

http://www.constitution.org/cons/ann...h_crockett.htm

FABRICATION!!!

Myth Busted!

Ann Toplovich
Executive Director
Tennessee Historical Society:1

Dime novelist Edward S. Ellis: 0

Final Score.

Am I the only one that can smell this bullshit? You guys need to get your noses checked.

"Am I the only one that can smell this bullshit? You guys need to get your noses checked".

No monger everyone of us could tell you were here.

Pass what? The bill that they voted on?

No, you're talking about a version of the bill with a poison pill that gives Republicans something to crow about right before the election. Care to explain what illegal Mexican immigrants have to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York?

Then would you care to explain why REPUBLICAN CRITIC Pete King voted FOR the bill? (hint: the answer is that he's a hypocrite, a Republican, a hypocrite, and a Republican.) Originally Posted by Longermonger

So what your saying is that the Democrats killed a bill to help people because they did not want to let the republicans have anything to "crow about" during the election. So in a nutshell they killed a bill for political reasons. Sounds like that might be a little hyprocritical to me itself. Shouldn't the choice have been to vote the bill in so that they people Weiner is spazing over can get the money they need, guess they dont need it as much if it might cost some political clout.