Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apart from the fact that it is supposed to pay health expenses for the first responders, do you know what's in the bill? You realize, don't you, that the bill never went through the normal committee hearing process where amendments could be proposed and voted on? Why not? What are Schumer and Gillibrand trying to pull? Do you know why it costs 7 billion dollars? Is that huge number justified? We don't know because the bill wasn't vetted. Were you aware that the first responders already were compensated out of the 9/11 fund set up by Congress. Finally, presumably most of those first responders were city and state employees. So their injuries and illnesses are work injuries covered by workers' compensation. There is no limit for medical costs associated with work injuries. Why isn't the New York state and city workers compensation system taking care of their employees? Just a few questions the answers to which we'll probably never get because this is not about compassion. It's about politics--Democrat politics.
The Compensation fund ended in 2003. The amount is justified because that is what its needed, this is a 10 year plan. The bill has been vetted, its nothing new, it has been in the works since late 08, and was officially introduced in 2009. Hearings were held on it. Watch the actual video and you will see the Police Department, Fire dept and Workman's Comp do not cover everything.
Apart from the fact that it is supposed to pay health expenses for the first responders, do you know what's in the bill? You realize, don't you, that the bill never went through the normal committee hearing process where amendments could be proposed and voted on? Why not? What are Schumer and Gillibrand trying to pull? Do you know why it costs 7 billion dollars? Is that huge number justified? We don't know because the bill wasn't vetted. Were you aware that the first responders already were compensated out of the 9/11 fund set up by Congress. Finally, presumably most of those first responders were city and state employees. So their injuries and illnesses are work injuries covered by workers' compensation. There is no limit for medical costs associated with work injuries. Why isn't the New York state and city workers compensation system taking care of their employees? Just a few questions the answers to which we'll probably never get because this is not about compassion. It's about politics--Democrat politics.
Apparently someone told you there are other things in the bill that are offensive. Of course, reading it doesn't bare that out, but if you are not interested in knowing, don't read it. Rely on which ever partisan you want.
Did they look for ways to cut costs before they helped pass tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires? The heroes of 9-11 shouldn't be thrown in the trash...they should be honored AND TREATMENTS FUNDED!
I agree. However, there are still a few people (probably TP or Republicans) on here who were complaining about "why" it was blocked even though I told them a few pages ago why the Republican blocked it. Personally, I say fund it b/c they risked their lives while Congress was sitting on their butts arguing about stuff. I'd rather pay for that than the tax breaks for the wealthy and my generation (and our kids) will probably be the ones to pay for it. YOU'RE WELCOME, BABY BOOMERS!
The Compensation fund ended in 2003. The amount is justified because that is what its needed, this is a 10 year plan. The bill has been vetted, its nothing new, it has been in the works since late 08, and was officially introduced in 2009. Hearings were held on it. Watch the actual video and you will see the Police Department, Fire dept and Workman's Comp do not cover everything.
It was funded by closing a corporate tax loophole.
A change to the bill has been made, so we will see what happens from there. It has gone from $7.4 billion to $6.2 billion (in part due to a court settlement) and the funding will now be based off an excise tax on government purchases made overseas.
Why do we only seem to find these extra sources of money, closed tax loopholes/overseas taxes/etc. when we are looking to fund more programs and not just as a routine matter of good business to help pay down our debts and stop wasting money?
Apparently someone told you there are other things in the bill that are offensive. Of course, reading it doesn't bare that out, but if you are not interested in knowing, don't read it. Rely on which ever partisan you want.
House Passes Bill to Provide 9/11 First Responders with Health Care (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article& id=2132:house-passes-bill-to-provide-911-first-responders-with-health-care&catid=122:media-advisories&Itemid=55 - broken link)
Well to lay it all out in the open this bill doesn't just pertain to ACTUAL FIRST RESPONDERS, but also may include anyone who lived, worked, attend school, or did almost anything else in the area regularly between the time of the attacks and May 2003. "Survivors".
Although I'm not an expert on any of this what I have "heard" from reading other forums and opinions is that providing this kind of funding for one kind of a disaster, and not others, can be questionable and/or can set a precedent to provide it for a variety of other things that can go wrong in the world.
I can totally understand wanting to have conversation about this and not just ramming it though to make everyone feel good. But questioning this kind of thing (or anything with 9/11, military, or children in the title) gets you labeled as a heartless monster. It's a shame because nobody can deny that we HAVE passed some crappy legislation in knee jerk, emotional, fashion.
I personally have come to question any bill named for a person or targeting a specific group since those are often the ones given the least scrutiny.
Well to lay it all out in the open this bill doesn't just pertain to ACTUAL FIRST RESPONDERS, but also may include anyone who lived, worked, attend school, or did almost anything else in the area regularly between the time of the attacks and May 2003. "Survivors".
Although I'm not an expert on any of this what I have "heard" from reading other forums and opinions is that providing this kind of funding for one kind of a disaster, and not others, can be questionable and/or can set a precedent to provide it for a variety of other things that can go wrong in the world.
I can totally understand wanting to have conversation about this and not just ramming it though to make everyone feel good. But questioning this kind of thing (or anything with 9/11, military, or children in the title) gets you labeled as a heartless monster. It's a shame because nobody can deny that we HAVE passed some crappy legislation in knee jerk, emotional, fashion.
I personally have come to question any bill named for a person or targeting a specific group since those are often the ones given the least scrutiny.
Do you understand what happened on Sept 11? That was 2001, by the way. Who knows the full impact of the event? Repercussions may take years to determine. This effort has been 9 years in coming. The Dems finally did create the Bill. I don't know what happened about it from 2001 thru 2009, do you? Do you honestly believe the objection is in the funding or content, not simple political fodder?
It was funded by closing a corporate tax loophole.
A change to the bill has been made, so we will see what happens from there. It has gone from $7.4 billion to $6.2 billion (in part due to a court settlement) and the funding will now be based off an excise tax on government purchases made overseas.
Why can't take that 6.2 billion out of the foreign aid spending? Why raise taxes unless it is to pay down the debt? In fact why not start by cutting out the many billions in waste?
I want to help these people but lets do it the right way. The way most of us manage our house hold budgets. Want a new TV? No money then save up. Eliminate something else to help out. Get rid of the cell phones or go with a cheaper plan. Don't buy a new car every 3 years etc.
What does the Dept of energy cost us? It does so much that I bet if you ask 100 people what it does maybe 1 would come up with an answer.
Lets help the people but do without incurring more debt or raising taxes on anyone. Hell trim the pork out of the defence budget for example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
