TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- 9/11 first responder health care bill (Zadroga bill)
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

9/11 first responder health care bill (Zadroga bill)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Can anyone offer any arguments on why this bill is being filibustered?

in before the17... aw fuck. I seriously doubt he'd try to explain this. I saw that JS show on my DVR about two hours ago. Stewart is rightfully pissed.

the hypocrisy of the right..never fails to surprise me

Because millionares getting a tax cut is more important than anything else in the world, no matter what the cost. Havent you learned that about republicans yet?

2nd thing about republicans. If anything would make democrats look, good even if its in the public good, even if you were the one that suggested it in the first place, its probably a hideous spending increase that will make your clidrens children pay outrageous taxes on so it must be disposed of.

Essentially speaking, they were used as pawns. If the Republicans didn't get their tax cut for the wealthy, they could stall everything and make the Democrats responsible for double-crossing the first responders just because they didn't want to yield to other Republican demands. Pretty reprehensible, but I only wish I could say I was surprised.

After recent polling showing that 98.2% of all Republicans are pedophiliacs.. I think we should just ban the party all together.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker in before the17... aw fuck. I seriously doubt he'd try to explain this. I saw that JS show on my DVR about two hours ago. Stewart is rightfully pissed.

THis was already brought up in a thread last week. This was my response at the time:

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Ok I've done a little research. Some good arguments against passing this bill- for example, it is for a total of $7.4 billion, but nobody has any actual idea what the true costs will be, and they want those figures cleared up before allocating that much money. That sounds reasonable, considering it's basically a slush fund that would give $1 million to 74,000 people... people who already have received millions of dollars from the govt. thus far. Where does it end? The construction companies who held contracts carried insurance and that's who should pay, not the taxpayer. Something reeks of ulterior political motives here but I can't put my finger on it.

BTW- the GOP already agreed to bring the bill back up for passage once someone produces legitimate numbers as to what the true costs will be.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Essentially speaking, they were used as pawns. If the Republicans didn't get their tax cut for the wealthy, they could stall everything and make the Democrats responsible for double-crossing the first responders just because they didn't want to yield to other Republican demands. Pretty reprehensible, but I only wish I could say I was surprised.

Stop framing it the incorrect way. THERE WAS NO TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY (or any income group) in the bill. TAX RATES that have been in place for over 7 years now are simply remaining. Show me the tax cut the "rich" you speak of are now getting. Hmmm... looks to me like the 35% Federal Income Tax rate since 2003 for the highest earners is now at a whopping.... 35% after this bill passed!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The construction companies who held contracts carried insurance and that's who should pay, not the taxpayer.

They touched on that in the Jon Stewart clip. Even if the tax payer has to pay initially for a subsequently subrogated bill to the insurance companies (all of whom are disputing the legitimacy of the illnesses while these guys die in bankruptcy), some measure should be passed so that these people are taken care of. Furthermore, that legislation should compel insurance companies to do more. There is no excuse for this to have happened; and to have been happening for 9+ years. There is absolutely nothing which can explain away this utterly reprehensible condition.







Got it?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Stop framing it the incorrect way. THERE WAS NO TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY (or any income group) in the bill. TAX RATES that have been in place for over 7 years now are simply remaining. Show me the tax cut the "rich" you speak of are now getting. Hmmm... looks to me like the 35% Federal Income Tax rate since 2003 for the highest earners is now at a whopping.... 35% after this bill passed!

Semantic hashing about Republicans keeping a Bush Tax Cut in place doesn't negate the facts. Time and time again, the Zedroga Bill has been stalled and it's the Republicans with their hands in the cookie jar.








I am actually now surprised that you're defending this. I've read you typing some pretty insensitive shit, but, above most of it, this takes the cake.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss BTW- the GOP already agreed to bring the bill back up for passage once someone produces legitimate numbers as to what the true costs will be.

That's like stating you'll need to learn to swim before you get in the water. There'd be no way to ascertain that without having something in place to do that.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker They touched on that in the Jon Stewart clip. Even if the tax payer has to pay initially for a subsequently subrogated bill to the insurance companies (all of whom are disputing the legitimacy of the illnesses while these guys die in bankruptcy), some measure should be passed so that these people are taken care of. Furthermore, that legislation should compel insurance companies to do more. There is no excuse for this to have happened; and to have been happening for 9+ years. There is absolutely nothing which can explain away this utterly reprehensible condition. Got it?

Do you get that the GOP already agreed to bring the bill back up for a vote and will support it once someone produces "true cost" figures, which were never done? The Democrats basically said, "We need $7.4 billion for this" and all the Republicans are saying is, how do you come to that figure and what are the true costs projections?

This was nothing more than political theater to paint Republicans as evil heartless monsters once again right before the holidays. This reminds me of the laughable nonsense that happens every 4 years with "The Republicans want to take away your Social Security, seniors!" and "The Republicans want to take away school lunches! They want to starve the children!"

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Do you get that the GOP already agreed to bring the bill back up for a vote and will support it once someone produces "true cost" figures, which were never done? The Democrats basically said, "We need $7.4 billion for this" and all the Republicans are saying is, how do you come to that figure and what are the true costs projections?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker That's like stating you'll need to learn to swim before you get in the water. There'd be no way to ascertain that without having something in place to do that.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This was nothing more than political theater to paint Republicans as evil heartless monsters once again right before the holidays. This reminds me of the laughable nonsense that happens every 4 years with "The Republicans want to take away your Social Security, seniors!" and "The Republicans want to take away school lunches! They want to starve the children!"

Then where has the Republican initiative on this been? If they're not heartless, how come this bill hasn't been passed? Where is their blue-ribbon panel to determine the expenses so that these people are taken care of? You keep coming up with reasons it hasn't been done, but in the light of scrutiny, your reasons absolutely do not stand up to the light of day.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Semantic hashing about Republicans keeping a Bush Tax Cut in place doesn't negate the facts. Time and time again, the Zedroga Bill has been stalled and it's the Republicans with their hands in the cookie jar. I am actually now surprised that you're defending this. I've read you typing some pretty insensitive shit, but, above most of it, this takes the cake.

Who... whose hands are in the cookie jar!? Surely not all those Democrats who use taxpayer money to fund every entitlement and social engineering project under the sun, i.e. buying votes. Or the Democrats who requested pork barrel spending/earmarks at a rate of over 50-1 compared to Republicans in the new budget:

quote:

In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion. Where did those GOP earmark requests come from? Just four Republican lawmakers: South Carolina Rep. Henry Brown, who did not run for re-election this year; Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao, who lost his bid for re-election; maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul; and spending king Rep. Don Young of Alaska. The other Republican members of the House -- 174 of them -- requested a total of zero earmarks.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...p-goes-straight



What's insensitive... that I said Republicans agreed to support the bill once the Dems produced figures as to how they came up with a $7.4 billion number? Yeah- I have a black heart dude. lol grow up man.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Then where has the Republican initiative on this been? If they're not heartless, how come this bill hasn't been passed? Where is their blue-ribbon panel to determine the expenses so that these people are taken care of? You keep coming up with reasons it hasn't been done, but in the light of scrutiny, your reasons absolutely do not stand up to the light of day.

Hey man, I don't know all the fucking details... all I know is that it is perfectly reasonable to request a cost breakdown from the people who are introducing the bill before agreeing to pass it. What the fuck man, are you 12? Budgets are important.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Stop framing it the incorrect way. THERE WAS NO TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY (or any income group) in the bill. TAX RATES that have been in place for over 7 years now are simply remaining. Show me the tax cut the "rich" you speak of are now getting. Hmmm... looks to me like the 35% Federal Income Tax rate since 2003 for the highest earners is now at a whopping.... 35% after this bill passed!

You know perfectly well that the bush tax cuts due to the wonderfully unique way they were put in place were not designed to be permanent but to go back to the clinton levels.
"But whats the problem with extending the tax cuts" one dimwitted republican might say, "isnt that a good thing?" Then an economist walks into the room, smacks their stupid face and shows them the 800 billion hole in the budget that the tax cuts will create. "Hows that for your fiscal responsibility?" the economists asks "feel great about china, saudi arabia and fucking iran owning your national debt yet?" to which the dimwitted republican with a red handprint on his face and a sad look in his eyes replies "But the billionaires, wont someone think of the billionaires, the poor Walton family NEEDS a 30 billion dollar tax cut or their kids might starve!"

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose You know perfectly well that the bush tax cuts due to the wonderfully unique way they were put in place were not designed to be permanent but to go back to the clinton levels. "But whats the problem with extending the tax cuts" one dimwitted republican might say, "isnt that a good thing?" Then an economist walks into the room, smacks their stupid face and shows them the 800 billion hole in the budget that the tax cuts will create. "Hows that for your fiscal responsibility?" the economists asks "feel great about china, saudi arabia and fucking iran owning your national debt yet?" to which the dimwitted republican with a red handprint on his face and a sad look in his eyes replies "But the billionaires, wont someone think of the billionaires, the poor Walton family NEEDS a 30 billion dollar tax cut or their kids might starve!"

Why don't you just say we could raise taxes 10% across the board, but Republicans would oppose that... therefore Republicans are costing us $5 trillion per year!

Your stupid logic doesn't work. By your rationale, all money belongs to government until they decide how much the people get to keep; perfect Statist ideology. In reality, what you're saying is the extra $800 billion that will end up in the citizens' pockets is costing Government. Costing Government what, exactly?? They have grown a massive 30% since Obama took office, and each yearly budget is growing too.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Hey man, I don't know all the fucking details... all I know is that it is perfectly reasonable to request a cost breakdown from the people who are introducing the bill before agreeing to pass it. What the fuck man, are you 12? Budgets are important.

9 fucking years. Not even Pat Buchanan could defend Stewart's questions regarding this and trying to pawn it off on the fact that an amortized quarterly projection hasn't been worked out on numbers which are likely to rise, from day to day, as complications from lack of medical attention fester, utterly fails to excuse the Republicans holding out on this.

Trust me. It's not that I'm incapable of understanding the enormity of financial complexity requisite for such an undertaking.




One doesn't use large words like subrogate without having some fundamental understanding of what in the fuck they pertain to.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker 9 fucking years. Not even Pat Buchanan could defend Stewart's questions regarding this and trying to pawn it off on the fact that an amortized quarterly projection hasn't been worked out on numbers which are likely to rise, from day to day, as complications from lack of medical attention fester, utterly fails to excuse the Republicans holding out on this. Trust me. It's not that I'm incapable of understanding the enormity of financial complexity requisite for such an undertaking. One doesn't use large words like subrogate without having some fundamental understanding of what in the fuck they pertain to.

Well bravo, Dr. Thesaurus. I'm impressed with your scope of knowledge. Is it fair to say that if you're outraged at the GOP holding out on this bill after 9 years, you should be equally outraged that it took 9 years for Democrats to introduce this bill?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Well bravo, Dr. Thesaurus. I'm impressed with your scope of knowledge. Is it fair to say that if you're outraged at the GOP holding out on this bill after 9 years, you should be equally outraged that it took 9 years for Democrats to introduce this bill?

Actually it was introduced, February 4th, 2009.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Why don't you just say we could raise taxes 10% across the board, but Republicans would oppose that... therefore Republicans are costing us $5 trillion per year! Your stupid logic doesn't work. By your rationale, all money belongs to government until they decide how much the people get to keep; perfect Statist ideology. In reality, what you're saying is the extra $800 billion that will end up in the citizens' pockets is costing Government. Costing Government what, exactly?? They have grown a massive 30% since Obama took office, and each yearly budget is growing too.

Yes, by all means. Increase the taxes across the board. Let those damn dirty bastards that work two jobs to make ends meet pay more, its in the spirit of the season after all, isnt that right uncle Scrooge.

As it stands now, the republicans would oppose a bill that would officially name america the number one most awesomeness place in the world and the only place that Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus loves if a single democrat showed signs of liking the idea.

Im saying that the government needs money to run. You are taking part in two wars (that your party started). Act like it. If you want to spend money like idiots, at least take money in, dont just put it on your credit card. That shits not free, youll still have to pay it back. In case you havent been watching, just the mention that this disaster of a tax cut might go trough was enough to shake the markets and for speculation that your credit rating might drop. Why? Because your like an idiot with his first credit card. You buy stupid overpriced shit with it, but skip on the basic essentials. And no one wants to lend that idiot money, because he hasnt proven that he can act responsibly with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Yes, by all means. Increase the taxes across the board. Let those damn dirty bastards that work two jobs to make ends meet pay more, its in the spirit of the season after all, isnt that right uncle Scrooge.

Hey jabroni... almost 50% of our population doesn't pay income taxes. God you're clueless as to what's going on over here, yet you inject yourself into these USA political discussions like you live and work in D.C.

quote:

Im saying that the government needs money to run.

This fact alone does not justify Government from concocting any and every plan they deem necessary to grow Government, and borrow/spend to the hilt. What if they suddenly decide they want to create an agency dedicated to the study of dog stem cell research... should we just say, "well government does after all need money to run such an agency... pay up, rich people!"

quote:

In case you havent been watching, just the mention that this disaster of a tax cut might go trough was enough to shake the markets and for speculation that your credit rating might drop.

It wasn't a tax cut. Show me the Federal income tax rate that was just cut- from what percentage to what percentage. You can't. It is staying the same, and YES there is a difference.

quote:

Why? Because your like an idiot with his first credit card. You buy stupid overpriced shit with it, but skip on the basic essentials. And no one wants to lend that idiot money, because he hasnt proven that he can act responsibly with it.

We do buy lots of shit, but I would argue it's not overpriced; thanks to a (sort of) free market economy, we have more choice and reduced costs on products.

As Obama says, "let me be clear": our problem is NOT that we aren't taxed enough... it's that our government is too large and spends way too much. Way too much. It is so bloated, wasteful, and inefficient.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss

Mmm, the bullshit is strong with this one.

I'm neither Dem or Rep - I can't vote and have a deep understanding of not just the US political system but also various european systems.

What Republicans Voters fail to realise is that revenue has to come from somewhere, and some form of government is needed. You can't spend more AND cut taxes.

Now let's get real here - government spending went up under Bush. Hard. And by hard, I mean fucking scary.

But yet, while this was happening, taxs cuts were introduced by that very republican govt, and the Dems, being the pussies that they are, let it continue.

The money has to come from somewhere, and rep�ublicans, can't just trun around now and go "we need smaller govt and less spending" after they lapped it up for 8 long and very expensive years.

The tax cuts on the rich and super rich Directly benefited Bush's family and his friends. This is not a point of argument - it is cold hard plain fact, in the same way that Dick Cheyney personally made at least $5bn (at the most conservative estimates) from the Iraq war.

The tax revenue needs to come from somewhere, and cutting spending, with exception to defense (which is nothing more than welfare for private defense contractors), is not the answer - cutting tax breaks on those that make a lot of money is the sensible and fiscally responsible solution. It has been proven that trickle-down reaganomics did work, as so stunningly represented by the poverty gap and the massive recent increase in the wealth of the superrich, the poulation of the poor and the simultaneious shrinking of the middle income bracket.

Therfore suggesting taxes be raised 10% across the board does nothing to address the balance, which is the entire problem in the first place.

As Eddie has commented, there is no excuse for the Zadroga bill not to have been enacted other than protective politics. It is damn easy to to create a panel to oversee spending with incremental and baord supervised released of funds. And let's be honest here; 7.4bn is a drop in the ocean compared to the spending the last administration got signed off without anything in terms of substantiation.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Hey jabroni... almost 50% of our population doesn't pay income taxes. God you're clueless as to what's going on over here, yet you inject yourself into these USA political discussions like you live and work in D.C.

Oh im quite familiar with your tax policy, personally i find it now whats the word...shameful will suffice, i find it shameful that such a large part of the country earns so little that the government just cant be bothered to tax them because there is nothing there to take. And if living and working in DC is the prerequisite to get into a political discussion, we might just all gtfo of this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This fact alone does not justify Government from concocting any and every plan they deem necessary to grow Government, and borrow/spend to the hilt. What if they suddenly decide they want to create an agency dedicated to the study of dog stem cell research... should we just say, "well government does after all need money to run such an agency... pay up, rich people!"

No, you should say "why dont you show us some peer reviewed scientific paper that shows how the study of these stem cells can come up with means to improve our way of life or to make money." Then if they do, you give them the money and if they dont you smack them across the face for wasting your time. But if you dismiss the proposal out of hand simply because "it came from the government and the government is bad" your the one that needs a smack in the face.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss It wasn't a tax cut. Show me the Federal income tax rate that was just cut- from what percentage to what percentage. You can't. It is staying the same, and YES there is a difference.

The tax cuts were designed to expire in 2010. It was known since the day Bush signed them that on Jan 1st 2011, the cuts would be gone so in essence what we had here was a Bush tax hike. The democrats, silly buggers that they are thought "hey, we are democrats and we prefer if the government has money to function, but this bush tax hike will really hurt some of these struggling families in this recession. I know it will dent the budget but lets extend the tax cuts for these nice people so that they cant send their kids to school and buy food and stuff!" And all was nice and well, until of course some rich guy decided that if the poor people get something, that its his god given right to get it as well. Now you'll love this, but the rich guy doesnt actually need the money right now because, well hes fucking rich! The recession wont force him to rummage trough trash bins to find food. Hes just home enjoying the rich life, having sex with his rich wife, driving his expensive car, drinking some of his pretentious cognac with his posh friends when suddenly his perfectly manicured moustache twirls up in horror as he realises that the peasants are going to get more money than he does and by god he isnt going to stand for it! He and his posh friends get together, phone up their friendly neighbourhood republican representative who shares their outrage over the government making poor people a priority and here we are on dec 18th with the rich guy with an extra hundred grand in his safe that he isnt going to spend to stimulate the economy and a huge gaping hole in the budget that will need to be fixed somehow, preferably by taking something from the poor people.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss We do buy lots of shit, but I would argue it's not overpriced; thanks to a (sort of) free market economy, we have more choice and reduced costs on products. . As Obama says, let me be clear: our "problem" is NOT that we aren't taxed enough... it's that our government is too large and spends way too much. Way too much. It is so bloated, wasteful, and inefficient.

Except the stuff you spend money on isnt really affected by the free market. I would argue that the 2.5 wars you put on your card were ridiculously overpriced, on more than one level.

Your military budget and the wasteful spending going on there is a separate discussion on its own, yet barely anyone dares even to whisper a plan to cut a few things there or be branded unpatriotic.

Yet here we come to the crux of the matter. If youre already taxed enough, if the government has enough income that your deficit is a bit of a problem. You dont have to be an economist or have experience in running a business or a country to know that in order to balance a budget you have to have as much money coming in as you do going out. If you have a huge deficit to cut you need much more coming in than going out. So if theres already enough comming in there has to be cuts in going out yet what will you cut?

Will you cut the money you spend on blowing people in other countries up or will you cut the money you spend to have the people back home have a better life? Though do i really need to ask?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.