• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

Well, those who go above and beyond for this country should have the favor returned to them. I strongly believe in using federal powers to provide for those who make this nation great, but I understand the argument of the fiscal conservative. I think that's what upset Weiner and that's what upsets me about this bill being voted down -- it SHOULD have been a debate about whether or not the bill was fiscally viable and whether or not the good would outweigh potential abuses. Instead, Republicans overwhelmingly backed the bill until Democrats blocked them from pushing through partisan amendments. It was extremely childish for them to suddenly turn their backs on a bill they had supported all along.

I'm not from New York and I'm not sure whether Weiner was upset about their behavior or the fact that the bill was going to be voted down... probably a mix of both. I respect fiscal conservatives but I would urge them to recognize the fact that when Republican congressmen do something they agree with, it's merely coincidental.

Again...PLEASE tell me how spending 7+ billion dollars creating panels and commissions is supposed provide care to those first responders.

I KNOW that 7 billion MORE in debt for beauracracy is just a drop in the bucket when compared to our 14 TRILLION dollar debt...but maybe...JUST maybe...if you are creating legislation with the sole intent to provide health care (apparently above and beyond what they are already getting) then the legislation should reflect that and IF that be the case...then shame on republicans for not supporting it. Until then...shame on ANYONE for blindly following idiotic ideological arguments.
 
WHy on earth didnt the dems with their majority pass the resolution? What did the dems do (or stuff into) to the legislation that made it so unpalatable? .

I haven't seen much on the story, but my understanding is that it contained some pork that Republicans didn't want to pass.
 
At the end of the day, 9-11 first responders are left without health care and Republicans are the ones who voted it down.

This is an overly simplistic view that ignores the reality of the situation.
 
Sort of an annoying sidebar here. But was there anything in the bill that addressed how this benefit was going to get paid for? Issue applies to both parties. Seven billion is seven thousand million dollars. That is a lot of money that either comes from existing revenues or just add to the actions of an out of control group of crazed check writers.

It has been nine years since the 9/11 event. If this really is a needed bill to cover overlooked needs of a group of heroes, shouldn't they (Congress) be able to find some lesser value program to acquire the funds from?


(There i go again, talking crazy.....)



.
 
Last edited:
Sort of an annoying sidebar here. But was there anything in the bill that addressed how this benefit was going to get paid for? Issue applies to both parties. Seven billion is seven thousand million dollars. That is a lot of money that either comes from existing revenues or just add to the actions of an out of control group of crazed check writers.

It has been nine years since the 9/11 event. If this really is a needed bill to cover overlooked needs of a group of heroes, shouldn't they (Congress) be able to find some lesser value program to acquire the funds from?


(There i go again, talking crazy.....)



.

eliminate some of the corporate subsidies and use those monies for the healthcare of the 911 rescuers ... assuming your support of the measure compels taking those monies from another federal budget line item
 
didn't realize you had a difficult time finding out what is contained within the bil. here is a summary
(1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; and
(2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks. Requires the WTC program administrator to:
(1) implement a quality assurance program;
(2) establish the WTC Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee;
(3) establish the WTC Responders Steering Committee and the WTC Community Program Steering Committee;
(4) provide for education and outreach on services under the WTC program;
(5) provide for the uniform collection of data related to WTC-related health conditions;
(6) conduct research on physical and mental health conditions that may be related to the September 11 terrorist attacks; and
(7) extend and expand arrangements with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to provide for the World Trade Center Health Registry. Authorizes the administrator to make grants to the Department to address mental health needs relating to the terrorist attacks.Amends the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act to:
(1) make individuals eligible for compensation under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 for harm as a result of debris removal; and
(2) extend the deadline for making a claim for compensation.

nothing there that troubles me, as i do think we should FINALLY help those 9/11 rescuers who are facing multiple health problems. many were falsely told that the area was not hazardous to work in and they thus exposed their health to harm by believing rudy julieannie's people. the government is culpable

but the GOP wanted to take a straight forward bill and introduce an amendment which would say any illegal alien who was a 9/11 rescuer would be denied access to the provisions of the bill
that was a transparent attempt by the GOP to portray the dems as a party willing to sell out the hispanic copmmunity like the GOP is inclined to do
the dems did not bite
but to avoid the amendment they imposed a rule which required a two thirds vote for passage .... as you will see in the video below, 94% of the dems voted for helping the 9/11 rescurers ... the republicans, not so much
but don't take my word for it, see king, the minority whip, get his ass handed to him by Weiner:
New York Dem on rampage after GOP blocks help for 9/11 heroes | Raw Story

Thanks for posting this. Frankly, it's of no interest to me. I agree with another poster. Far too vague. These people have excellent health benefits, excellent disability. $7 billion1 Don't care if it passes or not. 'Course there'll be some PC political fallout. Who cares if Weiner handed the minority whip his ass? The Demos engineered this so that the Reps would have no input. Their bluff was called. Again, too bad so sad.

Justa said: i am delighted to learn you feel this way
but that does not explain your opposition to the bill while failing to know what was contained within it.

Neither did you 'til you looked it up.

And Thanks to Mr. Vicchio for "the REST of the story."

Chappy -- and just as much a shame AND MORE that the Dems chose to freeze out Reps. Or worse.
 
Last edited:
eliminate some of the corporate subsidies and use those monies for the healthcare of the 911 rescuers ... assuming your support of the measure compels taking those monies from another federal budget line item

Works for me. Any record/links that the sponsors of the bill have proposed such a suggestion?

Or is this just a politically driven altruistic proposal that has no funding and just writes another check on an empty Federal bank account...??



.
 
Or is this just a politically driven altruistic proposal that has no funding and just writes another check on an empty Federal bank account...??.

Bingo!
----------------
 
Works for me. Any record/links that the sponsors of the bill have proposed such a suggestion?

Or is this just a politically driven altruistic proposal that has no funding and just writes another check on an empty Federal bank account...??



.

we have the best government money can buy
so they write a check and print some money
SOP

but that in no way negates the legitimacy of the need of those 9/111 responders being in need to significant health care because of their service to our nation
not funding this would be little different than refusing to fund the VA medical centers
the GOP is an embarrassment to our nation
 
"It was wrong for the overwhelming majority of Republicans to vote against the bill, and it was wrong for Democrats to bring the bill to the floor under rules that made passage so much more difficult," he said."

That wasnt so hard, now was it...

Apparently too hard for you

Excerpted from “Plan to Aid 9/11 Victims Is Rejected in House” By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ, The New York Times, Published: July 29, 2010, my emphasis
[SIZE="+2"]S[/SIZE]till, many supporters of the legislation outside of Congress expressed bitter disappointment that House leaders did not allow a simple majority vote on the bill. In a statement afterward, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg expressed outrage over the outcome and criticized both parties.

“It was wrong for the overwhelming majority of Republicans to vote against the bill,” he said, “and it was wrong for Democrats to bring the bill to the floor under rules that made passage so much more difficult.”

If you hadn't noticed, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is not Rep. Anthony Weiner.

Simple fact...

As far as I am concerned, you are the Andrew Breitbart of debatepolitics.com. So either provide a link for your “simple facts” or shut the **** up.

Kneejerk liberal idealogues...ya just gotta love em...

Personally, I despise knee jerk ideologues, conservative, liberal and otherwise.
 
Chappy -- and just as much a shame AND MORE that the Dems chose to freeze out Reps. Or worse.

Democrats didn't freeze out Republicans; they had their vote and they voted against 9-11 first responders. If Republicans were punishing Democrats they missed and struck American heroes instead.
 
Notice how not ONE SINGLE Lefty repeating the marching orders from their masters has responded to the FACTUAL information I have provided that refutes EACH of their points.

The lies of Chappy, Justabubba and others ignore facts, ignore the REAL reasons the GOP acted how they did, as listed on the Gop.gov link provided. They ignore the crux of the issue because THIS is seen as a stick to hit the GOP in hopes of helping Dem prospects in Nov.

So, carry on Chappy, Justabubba. You've shown how little facts and reality mean to you, just the emotional BS you've been told to say is what matters for you.
 
Your talking points boil down to this: House Republicans to 9-11 first responders, “We're not going to support your health care, so, sue us.”
 
Apparently too hard for you



If you hadn't noticed, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is not Rep. Anthony Weiner.



As far as I am concerned, you are the Andrew Breitbart of debatepolitics.com. So either provide a link for your “simple facts” or shut the **** up.



Personally, I despise knee jerk ideologues, conservative, liberal and otherwise.

You ought to see someone about that self loathing thing. Because you and how many others here do it every day.

I STILL...with all the obvious knowledge and intensive study that has enabled you and others here to be FOR passage of this legislation...have yet to see ANYONE explain how creating panels and committees and creating 7+ billion in spending is actually providing direct support for those 9/11 providers. Ive read the legislation...I dont see it. You?
 
You ought to see someone about that self loathing thing. Because you and how many others here do it every day.

I STILL...with all the obvious knowledge and intensive study that has enabled you and others here to be FOR passage of this legislation...have yet to see ANYONE explain how creating panels and committees and creating 7+ billion in spending is actually providing direct support for those 9/11 providers. Ive read the legislation...I dont see it. You?

then you actually agree with Weiner
his vehement condemnation of the republicans was that they did not vote down the bill because it was without merit
the republicans were cowards, unwilling to vote it down because they actually found the bill inappropriate to the needs of the 9/11 responders
they hid behind a parlimentary procedure to prevent its passage
that is what sparked his over-the-top outrage
 
Lawyers for the city and more than 11,000 Ground Zero rescue and cleanup workers reached a tentative settlement tonight that will give them as much as $657 million. The proposal, presented today to Manhattan federal judge Alvin Hellerstein, must be approved by 95 percent of the firefighters, cops, medics and hardhats — many of whom were sickened by working in the toxic debris. Each worker whose illness is confirmed would get a sum based on the type and severity of his or her medical problem.

Special masters appointed by Hellerstein and lawyers for both sides have worked up "severity charts" that would grade individual conditions on a scale from zero to four — and determine the amount paid to each worker. Individual payments could run as high as $1 million, according to one lawyer.

In addition, some would get an insurance policy to cover Ground Zero-related illnesses that have not yet developed.

Those who claim to have physical illnesses that have not been confirmed by doctors would collect $3,200 — the minimum payment.

People with stress related and other psychological problems would not be compensated.

The city’s payouts would come from the WTC Captive Insurance Co., a nonprofit controlled by Mayor Bloomberg that manages $1 billion provided by Congress.

It has already spent more than $275 million on lawyers and administrative expenses to fight claims – but made most of it back in interest and payments from private insurers.

The approximately $350 million left after the $657 million is paid would be held to pay those whose diseases develop later.

The deal is a major breakthrough in the complex legal wrangling that has been going on since 2004.

But the city fund is only one pot of money the workers are going after.
The settlement would not necessarily end their suits against the Port Authority, which has $600 million worth of insurance coverage.

"There’s hundreds of millions more," the lawyer said. "This is just the beginning."

The settlement plan comes as the first 12 trials of sick workers are set to begin on May 16.

Jennifer McNamara, whose firefighter husband, John, died of cancer in August, said she would have to learn more about the terms before deciding on her vote.

"No amount of money is going to compensate me for what I’ve been through, and no amount of money is going to bring my husband back," said McNamara.

"My hope would be that [the settlements] would help people who are still alive and need the money to survive," said McNamara, whose son, Jack, just turned 3.

John McNamara, of Ladder Co. 123 in Crown Heights, spent 500 hours in the rubble searching for fallen comrades.

"I think its shameful that it took this many years, until the eve of the first trials, before they were willing to have this kind of discussion," she said.

A disabled 9/11 responder, ex-NYPD cop Christopher Baumann, also had mixed feelings.

"You know how many people have died waiting? There are people not taking the proper medication because they can’t afford it," the father of two said..

Read more: City lawyers, Ground Zero rescue & cleanup reach tentative $657M agreement - NYPOST.com

So there are about 11,000 workers involved. Approximately $350 million has already been awarded, per this article. There's another $600 million in insurance available to these workers (in lump sum payments). And Congress is looking at a bill that will add another $7.4 BILLION to the pot?

Let's see $7,400,000,000 + $350,000,000 + $600,000,000 = $8,300,000,000 for 11,000 people = $754,500 per person. Without more information, this is just another boondoggle bill.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I just gotta throw this out there:

With a name like Weiner, he shouldn't be in public service.

My congressman has a first name, it's A-n-t-h-o-n-y...
 
Your talking points boil down to this: House Republicans to 9-11 first responders, “We're not going to support your health care, so, sue us.”

No, that's what you've been told to scream at everyone. The actual reasoning doesn't matter. The GOP Blocked a Dem push to spend (with economy hurting consequences) 7.4 Billion because the Dem's refused to allow any changes, amendments or discussion on the matter.

There are all ready 3 programs to help the 911 folks, why do we need to spend this much? Why do it with no discussion? Questions you cannot ask, because you've been told NOT TOO.
 
What Rep. Weiner did with his outrage was to make it crystal clear to the American public that it is the Republicans who are against this potential popular legislation. Who could be against the 911 first responders? Silly me, the Republicans of course. The Repulicans play this game all the time.

The Republican plan was to add a phony "poison pill" amendment that would anger Hispanics – a key Democratic constituency.
 
The Democrats are, for their part, looking for legislative achievements that they can take back to their constituents.

The Republicans are, for their part, trying to deny them any such achievements.

What interests me a lot more is this question: What does this legislation even do, and is it even necessary? The 9/11 responders have been 9/11 responders for, oh, almost 9 years now -- so why now?
 
The Democrats are, for their part, looking for legislative achievements that they can take back to their constituents.

The Republicans are, for their part, trying to deny them any such achievements.

What interests me a lot more is this question: What does this legislation even do, and is it even necessary? The 9/11 responders have been 9/11 responders for, oh, almost 9 years now -- so why now?

Have you not seen the arguments made to defend voting against this bill? Democrats 'forced' this bill. Democrats want to give money to illegal immigrants. Democrats want to give too much money to the 9/11 victims. The same Republicans who pimp out the 9/11 victims everytime they want to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are now telling us that the people who risked their lives trying to save others are getting too much money. The best part about it is MrVicchio posting a link about the GOP saying that this is an entitlement program. Oh well, I guess in his xenophobic America these people don't really deserve the money.
 
What Rep. Weiner did with his outrage was to make it crystal clear to the American public that it is the Republicans who are against this potential popular legislation. Who could be against the 911 first responders? Silly me, the Republicans of course. The Repulicans play this game all the time.

The Republican plan was to add a phony "poison pill" amendment that would anger Hispanics – a key Democratic constituency.

Here's an article that sums it up:

Rep. Anthony Weiner’s outburst on the House floor Thursday night had all the most compelling elements of political theater. The New York Democrat shouted. He pointed. He flailed. And most importantly, he castigated the opposing party.

But Congressman Weiner’s tirade on the House floor – as well as his finger-wagging confrontation with Republican Rep. Peter King Friday on Fox News – is more than just an amusing illustration of an ill-tempered year in Washington.

The reasons why members of Congress are so angry at each other are, in many respects, the same reasons why everyone else is so angry at Congress – an institution in which only 11 percent of Americans have confidence, according to a recent Gallup poll.

In short, the story of Anthony Weiner and the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act is a parable of how obstruction, political brinksmanship, and an aversion to putting principle over politics – by both parties – resulted in institutional gridlock of both comic and tragic proportions.

Make no mistake, the Zadroga Act is very popular on both sides of the aisle: It has 115 co-sponsors in the House, including 15 Republicans. The bill would set aside money to pay the health-care costs for first responders to the 9/11 attacks in New York City, many of whom deal with respiratory issues caused by the dust and debris that day.

Yet on Thursday, only 12 Republicans voted for the bill, and it failed.

Why?

Politics.

Ahead of elections, parties tend to slowly abandon actual achievement in favor of forcing the opposition to take a “poison pill” – forcing a vote that might prove to be embarrassing, and thus good campaign fodder.

In this case, Republicans decided earlier this week to introduce an amendment to the Zadroga Act that would prevent any first responders who were illegal immigrants from collecting the health benefits.

There had been no serious discussion previously about whether any 9/11 responders were illegal immigrants. But getting Democrats to vote in favor of benefits for any potential illegal immigrants would anger voters in conservative districts. Voting against it would anger Hispanics – a key Democratic constituency.

Republicans wanted to set up a lose-lose situation for Democrats.

Of course, there were also many conscientious objections to the bill by Republicans, arguing that there was already a fund for these responders and that the bill, as written, encourages waste and fraud and adds to an already enormous deficit.

Yet the math suggested the bill, without any amendments, had more than enough votes to pass.

So the Democrats responded in kind.

Instead of allowing Republicans to tack on controversial and potentially damaging amendments, the majority employed a procedure to preclude any new amendments. The caveat: Now the Zadroga Act needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

In essence, Democrats made their own “poison pill” out of the bill. The two-thirds threshold forced Republicans either to willingly eat humble pie or to oppose the bill and be open to charges that they were abandoning the heroes of 9/11.

In the end, the Zadroga Act fell 35 votes short of the two-thirds majority, and a bill supported in all likelihood by a majority of Americans and without doubt by a majority of the House itself was defeated.

And the shouting began.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...Weiner-rant-reveals-why-nobody-likes-Congress

I think there's more than enough blame to go around.
 
Last edited:
Have you not seen the arguments made to defend voting against this bill? Democrats 'forced' this bill. Democrats want to give money to illegal immigrants. Democrats want to give too much money to the 9/11 victims. The same Republicans who pimp out the 9/11 victims everytime they want to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are now telling us that the people who risked their lives trying to save others are getting too much money. The best part about it is MrVicchio posting a link about the GOP saying that this is an entitlement program. Oh well, I guess in his xenophobic America these people don't really deserve the money.

No, I haven't seen them. I try to keep my intake of political malarchy to a minimum. My question is specifically with respect to what the bill actually does, and why it hasn't been done before now.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom