I also heard Sen Barrasso say to Cavuto this morning that the Dems would not allow debate and amendments.
You see, Cong. Weiner is a dem so of course he knows all of the right buttons to push and will play on your emotions while backstabbing you.
Like I said, this bill is a mockery to those First Responders, they are using the term knowing it hits a nerve.
It's the state of New York's responsibility, not the taxpayers of the other 49 states.
You see, Cong. Weiner is a dem so of course he knows all of the right buttons to push and will play on your emotions while backstabbing you.
Like I said, this bill is a mockery to those First Responders, they are using the term knowing it hits a nerve.
shep smith should be barred from this forum.
I think there were a couple of procedural issues: lack of customary committee hearings and opportunity to amend the bill. Also, concerns about where the money will come from.
I still think this will pass.
Believe it or not, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show has been all over it the last week or so.
Someone posted a great line:
Democrats propose a bill to give reading glasses to dogs. Republicans vote it down.
Newspaper headlines: “REPUBLICANS WANT TO BLIND PUPPIES”.
Mainly because they keep tacking every imaginable piece of commie legislation onto this bill to try to get it to pass. AND to make the republicans look bad when they vote it down. It’s the old commie bait and switch legislative maneuver.
A few months ago the Dems tied the so called “First Responders” bill to another piece of government spending that they knew Republicans wouldn’t want to vote on, they put it in the same bill for the sole purpose of trying to get the spending portion passed, counting on there being a sufficient number of people who would hear the words “Republicans against the First Responders bill” enough times, and would not think or seek knowledge enough to care. This is a classic Democrat tactic, appealing to the lowest common denominator of intelligence and substance, underestimating (in some cases, not in others) the intelligence of the average American.
It’s classic deficit spending, and classic grandstanding. Dems 101. And yes, you CAN say if most Democrats want it, its bad for the country. Its not that way fundamentally, but Democrats have made it that way by consistently supporting big spending, irresponsible garbage. If they change the garbage that they support, then we can change our perception of them. The onus is not on us to be “open-minded” about Democrats possibly supporting individual rights and responsibilities and self-reliance. The onus is on them to show us that they can govern. For now its clear they can’t, and so being “open-minded” about their initiatives is just foolish.
If you don’t understand that about Democrats then you should seriously consider whether you have a realistic view of the universe. Let me be clear: their philosophy is pure *evil*. And evil must be stopped.
this should be the HR847, james zadroga 9/11 health and compensation act of 2010
copy and paste of previous post...
sponsors rep maloney, carolyn b, cosponsors - 115
Latest Major Action: 7/29/2010 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 255 - 159 (Roll no. 491).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.847:
Appears to setup a federally funded WTC worker/survivor/exposed person health system to monitor, pay for treatments, wide variety of physical or mental ailments, and lawsuits.
seems to advisory committee has lots of union and first responder reps, as well as victim oriented advocates - unions and lawyers probable winners
significant
SEC. 3351. WORLD TRADE CENTER HEALTH PROGRAM FUND.
`(a) Establishment of Fund-
`(1) IN GENERAL- There is established a fund to be known as the World Trade Center Health Program Fund (referred to in this section as the `Fund’).
`(2) FUNDING- Out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there shall be deposited into the Fund for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2020 (and the last calendar quarter of fiscal year 2011)—
`(A) the Federal share, consisting of an amount equal to the lesser of—
`(i) 90 percent of the expenditures in carrying out this title for the respective fiscal year (initially based on estimates, subject to subsequent reconciliation based on actual expenditures); or
`(ii) $71,000,000 for the last calendar quarter of fiscal year 2011, $318,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, $354,000,000 for fiscal year 2013, $382,000,000 for fiscal year 2014, $431,000,000 for fiscal year 2015, $481,000,000 for fiscal year 2016, $537,000,000 for fiscal year 2017, $601,000,000 for fiscal year 2018, $672,000,000 for fiscal year 2019, and $743,000,000 for fiscal year 2020; plus
`(B) the New York City share, consisting of the amount contributed under the contract under section 3331(d).
primarily.... of interest is that it funds a victim advocacy fund for lawsuits and medical expenses, etc. guided by ..... lawyers, union reps of firefighters and police, and others described as victim advocates..... billions of dollars in a slush fund, basically. pull up and read the bill and tell me why this is good.
No time to make sure it was the RIGHT bill. Before they vote for something like this, they need to make sure it covers the right bases and doesn’t drip with pork. They’ve only just begun.
GOP wanted the bill paid for by cuts in pork spending. Dems wanted a tax hike and the PORK.