Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

Cole said:

That would be good news. Funding is nice (if it actually happens)

Am not that familiar with reading through a congressional bill. Do you know where the section is that actually breaks down the $7,000,000,000? With a sum of that amount would guess/hope/pray there is some specific accounting of just how they arrived at that number....


.

Click to expand...

All the funding is under Subtitle D.

The annual cost is broken out at the top.

`

(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).

Click to expand...

There are also some spending limits for the administrative activities.

`(2) WTC HEALTH PROGRAM SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE- For the purpose of carrying out section 3302(a)--

`(A) for the last calendar quarter of fiscal year 2011, $25,000;

`(B) for fiscal year 2012, $100,000; and

`(C) for each subsequent fiscal year, the amount specified under this paragraph for the previous fiscal year increased by the percentage increase in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (all items; United States city average) as estimated by the Secretary for the 12-month period ending with March of the previous year.

`(4) UNIFORM DATA COLLECTION- For the purpose of carrying out section 3304 and for reimbursing Data Centers (as defined in section 3305(b)(2)) for the costs incurred by such Centers in carrying out activities under contracts entered into under section 3305(a)(2)--

`(A) for the last calendar quarter of fiscal year 2011, $2,500,000;

`(B) for fiscal year 2012, $10,000,000; and

`(C) for each subsequent fiscal year, the amount specified under this paragraph for the previous fiscal year increased by the percentage increase in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (all items; United States city average) as estimated by the Secretary for the 12-month period ending with March of the previous year.

Click to expand...

And other payments and reimbursements scattered throughout.

(A) CLINICAL CENTER FOR FDNY RESPONDERS IN NEW YORK- The Clinical Center of Excellence for FDNY Responders in New York specified in subsection (b)(1)(A) shall be reimbursed--

`(i) in the first year of the contract under this section, $600 per certified eligible WTC responder in the medical treatment program, and $300 per certified eligible WTC responder in the monitoring program; and

`(ii) in each subsequent contract year, subject to paragraph (3), at the rates specified in this subparagraph for the previous contract year adjusted by the WTC Program Administrator to reflect the rate of medical care inflation during the previous contract year.

Click to expand...

ludahai said:

So, the Democrats are showing their love for illegal immigrants so much that they were willing to ditch the 9/11 responders on the side of the road to show illegals that the Dems support them...

Of course, this is just another example of how the Dems want it their way or the highway, enacting procedures in an effort to prevent ANY INPUT at all from Republicans. SOP for the Dems... we all know that...

Click to expand...

Actually, there never was a discussion of illegal immigrants when debating the bill. The Republicans wanted to add the "poison pill" amendment because they knew it would anger Hispanics, a key Democratic constituency.

pbrauer said:

Actually, there never was a discussion of illegal immigrants when debating the bill. The Republicans wanted to add the "poison pill" amendment because they knew it would anger Hispanics, a key Democratic constituency.

Click to expand...

At the same time, it is a reasonable amendment and one I support wholeheartedly...

ludahai said:

At the same time, it is a reasonable amendment and one I support wholeheartedly...

Click to expand...

What makes is reasonable?

pbrauer said:

What makes is reasonable?

Click to expand...

Because they are illegally in the United States and illegal immigrants should not be receiving taxpayer provided services...

ludahai said:

Because they are illegally in the United States and illegal immigrants should not be receiving taxpayer provided services...

Click to expand...

Why would someone who here illegally jeopardize being deported by asking for services? They wouldn't, the amendment is phony and the Republicans know damn well it is.

pbrauer said:

Why would someone who here illegally jeopardize being deported by asking for services? They wouldn't, the amendment is phony and the Republicans know damn well it is.

Click to expand...

Which is why illegal immigrants are able to take advantage of government services on a daily basis.... If it is such a non-issue, why did the Democrats oppose it?

ludahai said:

So, the Democrats are showing their love for illegal immigrants so much that they were willing to ditch the 9/11 responders on the side of the road to show illegals that the Dems support them...

Of course, this is just another example of how the Dems want it their way or the highway, enacting procedures in an effort to prevent ANY INPUT at all from Republicans. SOP for the Dems... we all know that...

Click to expand...

Exactly! Demo's like Weiner are such liars....Hannity embarrassed him on the radio show Friday...It was funny as hell....


j-mac

Chappy said:

At the end of the day, 9-11 first responders are left without health care and Republicans are the ones who voted it down.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day, 9-11 first responders are left without health care and Democrats are the ones who chose to assure that would happen rather than deny illegal immigrants an entitlement program.

See, I can over simplify the situation to use as a partisan attack too! How fun!

justabubba said:

parlimentary procedure required republican assistance for the bill
watch this and see:

Click to expand...

True of False; the parlimentary procedure was not required and was put in place by the choice of the Democrats?

This whole thing is really simple, and shows the sad state of Politics in this country.

Democrats forced a procedural change to require a 2/3rds vote, in hopes of either passing this and being able to get the publicity while using the Republican's illegal arguments against them in November or it not passing and being able to paint the Republicans as uncaring about 9/11 individuals and the "party of no".

Republicans wanted to add an amendment to keep funding of this from going to illegal immigration because its a big issue with their base and would help for 2010 and if it was shot down would allow them to paint democrats as caring more for illegals than 9/11 rescurers.

In both cases the political posturing is blatantly evident and frankly disgusting. If this was ONLY about passing legislation to help the 9/11 survivors Democrats wouldn't have done the 2/3rds gimmick in the first place.

Neither side is more or less guilty in this. Could the Republicans had just gone along and given the votes despite their reservations about illegals? Absolutely. But that only mattered because Democrats choose to force a 2/3rds vote specifically to avoid the illegals. Had they not done that it would've also passed. Democrats played political games, at the cost of 9/11 first responders. Then Republicans played political games, at the cost of 9/11 first responders. Its pathetic for indivduals on either side to narrowly focus their hypocritical rage, as all it shows is that they are no different then those politicians that were involved in this...that they don't give a damn about the 9/11 first responders, caring only for what political points they can score off this.

Zyphlin said:

This whole thing is really simple, and shows the sad state of Politics in this country.

Democrats forced a procedural change to require a 2/3rds vote, in hopes of either passing this and being able to get the publicity while using the Republican's illegal arguments against them in November or it not passing and being able to paint the Republicans as uncaring about 9/11 individuals and the "party of no".

Republicans wanted to add an amendment to keep funding of this from going to illegal immigration because its a big issue with their base and would help for 2010 and if it was shot down would allow them to paint democrats as caring more for illegals than 9/11 rescurers.

In both cases the political posturing is blatantly evident and frankly disgusting. If this was ONLY about passing legislation to help the 9/11 survivors Democrats wouldn't have done the 2/3rds gimmick in the first place.

Neither side is more or less guilty in this. Could the Republicans had just gone along and given the votes despite their reservations about illegals? Absolutely. But that only mattered because Democrats choose to force a 2/3rds vote specifically to avoid the illegals. Had they not done that it would've also passed. Democrats played political games, at the cost of 9/11 first responders. Then Republicans played political games, at the cost of 9/11 first responders. Its pathetic for indivduals on either side to narrowly focus their hypocritical rage, as all it shows is that they are no different then those politicians that were involved in this...that they don't give a damn about the 9/11 first responders, caring only for what political points they can score off this.

Click to expand...

Through this link, I've changed my opinion on this matter. I think I'll call bull**** on Republicans here -- and just maybe on the whole bill, frankly. Think about it. Why add an amendment to the bill excluding illegals from receiving any compensation? If an illegal immigrant was brave enough to go wade into that mess and be injured, or contract a serious lung disorder, why shouldn't he receive benefits? He should be deported, IMO, but why shouldn't he be protected the same way a citizen is?

Or can we use and abuse illegals at will? If one agrees with THAT, then I could make an argument, that we should ONLY have used illegals so we woudn't have to pay them anything at all. Or exempt them from OSHA safety standards. Or any other protection that is just basic human rights. Maybe we should have them clean out our nuclear reactor cores. Call an illegal when we have to rescue property from a burning building maybe?

The bill itself is another story. As I've said earlier, it's a Yankee Doodle Bill. I'd be very interested to know just how much the government has already allocated to this program. I think we'd all be floored. Transparency? Where? Oh, it's so transparent, we can't see it.

Its similar to stolen property in my mind Maggie.

If someone steals an item, and then gives that item to a kid that was really really dreaming to have that item, guess what? The kid would have to give the item back and the guy that stole it would be punished. Even though he did it for "kind" reasons, even though it was a benevolent act in the end by trying to give it to someone who really wanted it, ultimately it came about because of illegal activity.

I applaud any illegal alien that did help out on that day. As a human, I feel for them. That doesn't change their legal status though, and that doesn't change the fact they should not be legally entitled to money in part gained through taxing the income of citizens.

I would be all for a bill that perhaps gave illegal immigrants who can provide legitimate proof that they helped as first responders on that day priority status when applying for citizenship or something of the sort. But their heroism occured in the process of committing a crime, and they should not be paid for that.

Zyphlin said:

Its similar to stolen property in my mind Maggie.

If someone steals an item, and then gives that item to a kid that was really really dreaming to have that item, guess what? The kid would have to give the item back and the guy that stole it would be punished. Even though he did it for "kind" reasons, even though it was a benevolent act in the end by trying to give it to someone who really wanted it, ultimately it came about because of illegal activity.

I applaud any illegal alien that did help out on that day. As a human, I feel for them. That doesn't change their legal status though, and that doesn't change the fact they should not be legally entitled to money in part gained through taxing the income of citizens.

I would be all for a bill that perhaps gave illegal immigrants who can provide legitimate proof that they helped as first responders on that day priority status when applying for citizenship or something of the sort. But their heroism occured in the process of committing a crime, and they should not be paid for that.

Click to expand...

I love your last paragraph. And, honestly? That could have been included in that legislation and I'd have had absolutely no problem with it.

Let me draw another analogy. An illegal immigrant is purposely run down by a carload of Skinheads. Should we not apply the law to them and charge them with murder because the guy was here illegally? Kind of ridiculous analogy, but I don't see much difference in the principle. With the stance you're taking, it would then seem we should use illegals for hazardous duty of ANY kind. I think we have to apply everybody's equal in the eyes of the law.

MaggieD said:

I love your last paragraph. And, honestly? That could have been included in that legislation and I'd have had absolutely no problem with it.

Click to expand...

Hell, if the Republicans added an amendment that barred illegal immigrants, whose to say that Democrats couldn't have added exactly what I said above?

Let me draw another analogy. An illegal immigrant is purposely run down by a carload of Skinheads. Should we not apply the law to them and charge them with murder because the guy was here illegally? Kind of ridiculous analogy, but I don't see much difference in the principle. With the stance you're taking, it would then seem we should use illegals for hazardous duty of ANY kind. I think we have to apply everybody's equal in the eyes of the law.

Click to expand...

But its not a good analogy. In this case the individuals killed someone. It doesn't matter that they killed someone who was in the act of an illegal thing.

For example....if someone steals something, and is running from the scene, can you run that person down in your car? No. Yet that person is performing an criminal act while you're in the process of running the person down. Similarly, while its criminal to be here illegally, its the actions by the people running him down that matter not the criminal nature of the person that is ran down.

We can not "use" Illegals for hazardous things. This is where your argument falls apart. If they're illegal, and the government knows they're illegal, then they shouldn't legally be USING them they should be either deporting them or punishing them. "Punishing" them by forcing them to go into emergency zones would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. What you're suggesting we should do does not work in anything but an extremely narrowly tailored hypothetical abscent of any kind of laws, and thus has little to no real baring on reality.

The issue with the notion of "applying the laws equally" is that its, well, bull. EVERY law discriminates in some way. This law in and of itself discriminates. It discriminates between 9/11 first responders and none 9/11 first responders. Its saying people that helped out with the crisis in 9/11 get something, but someone who helped out in say a burning building down in Podunk Virginia doesn't. That's not "applying the law" equally. But that's also simply normal for how things work. They're tailored for specific purposes or needs. "9/11 first responders who are citizens" isn't any more unequal than "9/11 first responders only, not other disaster first responders".

Zyphlin said:

Hell, if the Republicans added an amendment that barred illegal immigrants, whose to say that Democrats couldn't have added exactly what I said above?
EGZAKLY!!

But its not a good analogy. In this case the individuals killed someone. It doesn't matter that they killed someone who was in the act of an illegal thing.

For example....if someone steals something, and is running from the scene, can you run that person down in your car? No. Yet that person is performing an criminal act while you're in the process of running the person down. Similarly, while its criminal to be here illegally, its the actions by the people running him down that matter not the criminal nature of the person that is ran down.

We can not "use" Illegals for hazardous things. This is where your argument falls apart. If they're illegal, and the government knows they're illegal, then they shouldn't legally be USING them they should be either deporting them or punishing them. "Punishing" them by forcing them to go into emergency zones would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. What you're suggesting we should do does not work in anything but an extremely narrowly tailored hypothetical abscent of any kind of laws, and thus has little to no real baring on reality. I would disagree that my argument falls apart. It's quite well known that processing plants use illegals. It's also well known that's very dangerous work. Shall we bar them from OSHA standards? Frankly, my opinion is we already do de facto. They would no doubt be afraid to come forward to make a legitimate claim. Either the law applies to everybody or it doesn't. I don't think we can write laws that say, for instance, "If you've committed a crime and not been convicted, then this law/protection doesn't apply to you.

The issue with the notion of "applying the laws equally" is that its, well, bull. EVERY law discriminates in some way. This law in and of itself discriminates. It discriminates between 9/11 first responders and none 9/11 first responders. Its saying people that helped out with the crisis in 9/11 get something, but someone who helped out in say a burning building down in Podunk Virginia doesn't. That's not "applying the law" equally. But that's also simply normal for how things work. They're tailored for specific purposes or needs. "9/11 first responders who are citizens" isn't any more unequal than "9/11 first responders only, not other disaster first responders".
I don't agree with your example. This law is specifically designed to help those who either responded or helped clean up 9/11. It would be discriminatory to say, "Well, yeah, you helped; but you weren't here legally, so tough ****. Doesn't apply to you.

Click to expand...

------------------------------

Gah, very difficult to quote you like that.

MaggieD said:

I would disagree that my argument falls apart. It's quite well known that processing plants use illegals. It's also well known that's very dangerous work. Shall we bar them from OSHA standards? Frankly, my opinion is we already do de facto. They would no doubt be afraid to come forward to make a legitimate claim. Either the law applies to everybody or it doesn't. I don't think we can write laws that say, for instance, "If you've committed a crime and not been convicted, then this law/protection doesn't apply to you.

Click to expand...

However working in processing plants isn't the government using them, its private business. Emergency situations, dangerous situations, etc that the government deals with is what's being talked about in this bill. "We" you keep speaking of seems to be society, but society has no control over what private businesses do, they simply have (some, theoritical) control over the government so it is what I'm refernecing.

OSHA standards are irrelevant to illegal immigrants in my mind. Unless you're employing 100% illegal immigrants, if you're not meeting OSHA standards you're going to get tagged for it based on your legal workers anyways. Then, on top of that, you should get tagged for having illegal workers. Sure, you could say "well my hypothetical is that they're employing 100% illegal immigrants". Sure, then OSHA may not matter...but then again, they're going to get strung up for hiring that many illegal immigrants and their ENTIRE employee base would vanish as they're deported or arrested.

They SHOULD be afraid to come forward to get an entitlement...they're ILLEGAL. They shouldn't be here. They're breaking the law. They should be deported.

You are picking and choosing discrimination and which ones you're fine with. You go "Well, yeah, you helped; but you weren't here legally, so tough ****. Doesn't apply to you.". How would that be any different than someone who helped with a building collapse elsewhere? How would that not be going "Well, yeah, you helped people in a collapsed building; but you weren't in new York for 9/11, so tough ****. Doesn't apply to you."

You're picking and choosing WHO to apply this too. You're narrowly tailoring it only to "those that responded or helped clean up 9/11". You do that instead of going "Those that responded or helped clean up any disaster". That's no different than tailoring it to only legal 9/11 helpers. Its still making a distinction between two sets of people.

If you steal a persons identity, and that person gets a tax return, should you be free to get that tax return since you're ability to obtain it is due to illegal activity? No. The only reason the illegals would be able to be in the position to gain this benefit is because they were performing a criminal action, being here illegally. If they weren't committing that crime they'd not be elligible for this. You don't get to gain the benefits of something you did illegally.

Yeah, I wish I knew an easy way to copy a post, then dissect it. I haven't seen anyone else do it my way, so I know it must be possible. But it's so arduous the way I do it....putting in the {quote} {/quote} every so often and reformatting. Maybe I'm not doing it right.

I think rather than focussing on the legislation itself being discriminatory in a way that makes it wrong (which I don't agree with, but is a separate issue), I'm arguing that illegal immigrants are entitled to the same protections under the law that anyone else is. Singling out a "status" that it doesn't apply to, at least in THIS instance, would not be right, IMO. If you can't agree on the level of "legality," perhaps you can agree on a humanitarian level.

MaggieD said:

Yeah, I wish I knew an easy way to copy a post, then dissect it. I haven't seen anyone else do it my way, so I know it must be possible. But it's so arduous the way I do it....putting in the {quote} {/quote} every so often and reformatting. Maybe I'm not doing it right.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's pretty much it. Adding in the [ quote ] and [ /quote ].

I think rather than focussing on the legislation itself being discriminatory in a way that makes it wrong (which I don't agree with, but is a separate issue), I'm arguing that illegal immigrants are entitled to the same protections under the law that anyone else is. Singling out a "status" that it doesn't apply to, at least in THIS instance, would not be right, IMO. If you can't agree on the level of "legality," perhaps you can agree on a humanitarian level.

Click to expand...

Their entitled to protections under the law.

This isn't a protection under the law. This is a NEW law, and as a NEW law it can be shaped however. IE if there was already a law on the books that said "ANYONE that helped out in the aftermath of 9/11 gets health care" then so be it. But its not law and there's nothing that says they're ENTITLED to have a law passed that benefits them.

No one has a RIGHT to this health care. No one has a RIGHT to get something for helping out with 9/11. This is something that the government is doing, and I think its a good thing, but no one is entitled to it. And I have no issue with denying those benefits to individuals who were only able to do acts on that day due to their flagrent disregards for our laws.

As I said, laws are written every single day in discriminatory ways. This law in and of itself is written in a discriminatory way. The only reason you're upset about it is it'd be discriminating in a way you don't like if this had happened.

I can't agree on a humanatarian level. Not on this. Citizens of the country shouldn't have to pay for health care for individuals who only had the oppertunity they had because they were BREAKING THE LAW, not to mention the fact that they shouldn't be getting health care money because if we know where they are to give them Health Insurance we should be enforcing the law and deporting them.

Zyphlin said:

Nope, that's pretty much it. Adding in the [ quote ] and [ /quote ].



Their entitled to protections under the law.

This isn't a protection under the law. This is a NEW law, and as a NEW law it can be shaped however. IE if there was already a law on the books that said "ANYONE that helped out in the aftermath of 9/11 gets health care" then so be it. But its not law and there's nothing that says they're ENTITLED to have a law passed that benefits them.

No one has a RIGHT to this health care. No one has a RIGHT to get something for helping out with 9/11. This is something that the government is doing, and I think its a good thing, but no one is entitled to it. And I have no issue with denying those benefits to individuals who were only able to do acts on that day due to their flagrent disregards for our laws.

As I said, laws are written every single day in discriminatory ways. This law in and of itself is written in a discriminatory way. The only reason you're upset about it is it'd be discriminating in a way you don't like if this had happened.

I can't agree on a humanatarian level. Not on this. Citizens of the country shouldn't have to pay for health care for individuals who only had the oppertunity they had because they were BREAKING THE LAW, not to mention the fact that they shouldn't be getting health care money because if we know where they are to give them Health Insurance we should be enforcing the law and deporting them.

Click to expand...

Well stated, Zyphlin. I don't agree with you, but you've made your point.

Thanks, and I get yours too.

If I had to break it down JUST to emotion, I'd agree with you. But to me, it goes beyond simple emotion and the "fairness" of giving it to them infringes of "fairness" on others. I don't necessarily think its "wrong" if they get it, and it alone probably wouldn't stop me from voting in favor of something like this...but I can understand on principle disagreeing with this.

Now, with that said, I think most of those in congress did what they did not off of principle but off of political strategy

Zyphlin said:

Thanks, and I get yours too.

If I had to break it down JUST to emotion, I'd agree with you. But to me, it goes beyond simple emotion and the "fairness" of giving it to them infringes of "fairness" on others. I don't necessarily think its "wrong" if they get it, and it alone probably wouldn't stop me from voting in favor of something like this...but I can understand on principle disagreeing with this.

Now, with that said, I think most of those in congress did what they did not off of principle but off of political strategy

Click to expand...

On your last sentence, Zyphlin, I can say we utterly and completely agree. ;-)

VanceMack said:

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? If this was 'just legislation to make it easier for 9/11 responders to get help then it has merit and probably should have been passed. But Im guessing NOTHING in congress is ever as black and white, cut and dried as these snippets make it appear. Didnt a republican co-sponser the bill?

Weener...what a class act. That kind of rant is effective in a bar...in congress it makes him look like an asshole on a tirade. Which...yeah...thats what it was...

Click to expand...

Actually, vance, the story going around the cable channels is that the dems wouldn't allow the repubs to cram their unpalatable pork into the bill and that's why the repubs, yet again, said no. It's disgusting how our politicians act in D.C. Both sides.

satandog said:

Actually it is funded. I could not find the actual text in the bill but here is the CBO report.




Congressional Budget Office - Cost Estimates

Click to expand...

Yeah, and this way we get to pay for thousands of people that were in the dust for at least 4 days and large cororations will pay for it. How could this get any better, we buy votes with other peoples money.
God, what a country.

ludahai said:

So, the Democrats are showing their love for illegal immigrants so much that they were willing to ditch the 9/11 responders on the side of the road to show illegals that the Dems support them...

Of course, this is just another example of how the Dems want it their way or the highway, enacting procedures in an effort to prevent ANY INPUT at all from Republicans. SOP for the Dems... we all know that...

Click to expand...

Yes, we remember the health care deal.

I think it's shameful that this bill was not passed, but I cannot blame only the Republicans for doing it. Democrats hold the majority, and could have shot down every single dishonest Republican amendment, if they wanted to. The DEMOCRATS chose to suspend the rules, thus making passage impossible. Now they are going to tell the world that Republicans don't give a damn about the first responders. OK, so the Republicans don't care. What's new about that? The Democrats got this bill shot down for the express purpose of using political ammunition against the GOP, which is disgusting. Say what you want about the Republicans, but it is the Democrats who chose to manipulate the victims of 911 for political purposes, and this makes me want to puke.