9/11 Health Bill shot down in the Senate, Republicans to blame

[Mr. Peepers]

Second keeping the current rates benifit the middle class far mor than the rich.

Um, are you mental? The rich received the lion's share of the tax cuts - even though they are already taxed at MUCH lower rates than wage slaves. My taxes sure as hell didn't go down by any perceivable amount.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Here's a link:

Senate Vote Falls Short on 9/11 Health Bill for Sick Ground Zero Workers - WSJ.com

I read the article and the republicans didn't go against it because it was for health care for ground zero workers.

They went against it for a few reasons.

1) It did not have enough fraud protections
2) It taxed foreign companies only to pay for it (which I actually like)
3) Even with the tax it was not funded without adding to the national debt
4) The reps say they wont vote for anything until the bush tax cuts are made permanent or at least extended.

We have a responsibility to those rescue workers from 9/11 and we have a responsibility to our decendants to pay for everything we do from here on out without adding to the debt.

Thats a tough tightrope to walk. Using this issue as a political whip against republicans or democrats will surely expose people's partisan prefernaces.

I didn't say they went because it was for ground zero workers. I said they think they have enough money to pay for cuts in the estate tax, but not for this.

And I implied that they are holding it hostage until they get tax cuts for the wealthy, as per your point 4.

If my boss' taxes go up I wont get a raise so by raising his taxes they are effectively increasing my cost of living.

Plus my rich boss only got a 1.5% tax cut from bush while my poor ass got a 3% cut so you can't really say the bush tax cuts were "for the rich" when they were honestly for everyone from poor to rich.

but yeah, they should get this funded without adding to the debt and done.

 

[StevenC]

Second keeping the current rates benifit the middle class far mor than the rich.

Um, are you mental? The rich received the lion's share of the tax cuts - even though they are already taxed at MUCH lower rates than wage slaves. My taxes sure as hell didn't go down by any percievable amount.

Maybe you need a better job.
And stop lying. They are not (tax cuts) just keeping the rates current.
I know Olbermann and Shulltz have been feeding you talking points but you should try to think for yourself for a change.
I saw a drop of about $1000.00
I sure as hell can not afford to loose that now.
Even Obama admits that the adverage tax payer will see an increase of $3000.00

 

[DiamondDave]

Any link to the specifics on the bill, it's funding, and what 'extras' have been put into it?

Yeah, see the link I posted in post #2.

I even used the WSJ as my link to avoid any left-wing media spin.

Not what I asked for... I don't trust an article inherently... I would rather see exactly and completely what is in it

 

[BlindBoo]

This should have been passed years ago. But the dems have been holding it up just as much as the repubs. The repubs have already said nothing gets done until tax cuts are extended. If the dems really cared about these people they would pass the tax extentions. Personlly I hope they hold out. Then when the new congress is in the repubs can push legislation through the house that won't include all the spending that Obama wants.

So, as I said, the Republicans refuse to pass this bill until they get tax cuts for the rich, correct?

No, not correct.
First, they are not tax cuts but just keeping the current rate.
Second keeping the current rates benifit the middle class far mor than the rich. Isn't supposed to be just 2% are for those making over 250k? Also libs keep lying saying this doesn't include a large amount of small business owners.

Both are correct. The taxes were cut in 2001 and were unsustainable then just as they are now. If extended (keeping them at the current rate) they will contiue to add billions to the deficit.

I have no problem with going back to the taxes we had in the 1990's.

 

[DiamondDave]

So, as I said, the Republicans refuse to pass this bill until they get tax cuts for the rich, correct?

No, not correct.
First, they are not tax cuts but just keeping the current rate.
Second keeping the current rates benifit the middle class far mor than the rich. Isn't supposed to be just 2% are for those making over 250k? Also libs keep lying saying this doesn't include a large amount of small business owners.

Both are correct. The taxes were cut in 2001 and were unsustainable then just as they are now. If extended (keeping them at the current rate) they will contiue to add billions to the deficit.

I have no problem with going back to the taxes we had in the 1990's.

Of course you wouldn't.. you are the type that sure would not mind someone else paying more of a % share than you

Oh.. and a keeping a tax rate does not add billions or any amount to a deficit.. to ADD to a deficit, you have to spend...

 

[teapartysamurai]

Here's a link:

Senate Vote Falls Short on 9/11 Health Bill for Sick Ground Zero Workers - WSJ.com

I read the article and the republicans didn't go against it because it was for health care for ground zero workers.

They went against it for a few reasons.

1) It did not have enough fraud protections
2) It taxed foreign companies only to pay for it (which I actually like)
3) Even with the tax it was not funded without adding to the national debt
4) The reps say they wont vote for anything until the bush tax cuts are made permanent or at least extended.

We have a responsibility to those rescue workers from 9/11 and we have a responsibility to our decendants to pay for everything we do from here on out without adding to the debt.

Thats a tough tightrope to walk. Using this issue as a political whip against republicans or democrats will surely expose people's partisan prefernaces.

Plus the op furthers the erroneous idea, that tax cuts are "paid for" by the government, as IF the money belongs to Washington in the first place, and NOT the people who earn it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do the Republicans have the neccessary votes to overcome a veto?

Let the damned tax cuts expire. That is the fiscally sane thing to do.

But Republicans have not demonstrated anything appoaching fiscal sanity since Eisenhower.

Holding this and the unemployment money up for the benefit of the very wealthy is just another demonstration of the 'values, and morals' of the Republican Party.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's a link:

Senate Vote Falls Short on 9/11 Health Bill for Sick Ground Zero Workers - WSJ.com

I read the article and the republicans didn't go against it because it was for health care for ground zero workers.

They went against it for a few reasons.

1) It did not have enough fraud protections
2) It taxed foreign companies only to pay for it (which I actually like)
3) Even with the tax it was not funded without adding to the national debt
4) The reps say they wont vote for anything until the bush tax cuts are made permanent or at least extended.

We have a responsibility to those rescue workers from 9/11 and we have a responsibility to our decendants to pay for everything we do from here on out without adding to the debt.

Thats a tough tightrope to walk. Using this issue as a political whip against republicans or democrats will surely expose people's partisan prefernaces.

Plus the op furthers the erroneous idea, that tax cuts are "paid for" by the government, as IF the money belongs to Washington in the first place, and NOT the people who earn it.

Oh sure, Teabaggerwimp, the fighter jets, aircraft carrier groups cost nothing, right? Our nations infrastructure which we all depend on, is given to us by some Elves, correct? People like you are real welfare cases.

 

[KMAN]

Isn't it great that Republicans think there's plenty of money to go around when it comes time to lowering the estate tax for multi-billionaires, but there's just no money to help the 9/11 responders.

Way to go Republicans!

First you shamelessly harp on 9/11 to score political points, and then you abandon the heroes that suffer still for their efforts.

I thought Democrats had control of the Senate? Did something change over night???

 

[Avatar4321]

People are suffering and you want to jack up taxes from the economy. But you have no problem spending their money or their childrens money. And somehow we are the messed up ones.

 

[Vast LWC]

No, not correct.
First, they are not tax cuts but just keeping the current rate.
Second keeping the current rates benifit the middle class far mor than the rich. Isn't supposed to be just 2% are for those making over 250k? Also libs keep lying saying this doesn't include a large amount of small business owners.

You say Potatoe, I say potato.

My point is not really what they are asking for, my point is that this particular bill should not be held hostage for any reason.

The fact that it's so that the rich can get tax cuts is just more offensive, due to the fact that they are claiming there's not enough money to pay for the 9/11 responders.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Any link to the specifics on the bill, it's funding, and what 'extras' have been put into it?

Or how it's going to be paid for?

 

[Vast LWC]

Keep making excuses for the games dems are playing.
But you noticed I didn't blame just the dems. Both parties have dropped the ball on this issue. I guess you forgot repubs controlled congress 8 years ago.
As for the dems, if they were really concerned about these poeple they would have taken care of this but no this is just another example of polititians being the scum they are.

While the Dems have many games that they play in this manner, as do the Cons, this particular piece of BS is purely a Con game.

Are you seriously trying to point a finger at the Dems for this? Really?

 

[Vast LWC]

I thought Democrats had control of the Senate? Did something change over night???

Nope, but the Cons are threatening Filibusterer, again, which requires, as we all know, a 60 vote majority to override.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Maybe you need a better job.
And stop lying. They are not (tax cuts) just keeping the rates current.
I know Olbermann and Shulltz have been feeding you talking points but you should try to think for yourself for a change.
I saw a drop of about $1000.00
I sure as hell can not afford to loose that now.
Even Obama admits that the adverage tax payer will see an increase of $3000.00

My job is just fine, and no, I did not see a dramatic drop in taxes, nor have I (or anyone else her on the front lines) received the usual raises or bonuses due to the economy, but you can bet your ass the executives here did.

I do not listen to Olbermann or Shultz, ever, so you have no Idea (as usual) what you are talking about.

OOOOH, a big 1K a year - what's that... $83 a month? Wowee! Too bad you're not obscenely rich, or you would have gotten to keep more of that money (money that is mainly only taxed at 15% to begin with instead of the 40% federal, state and local taxes that people who bust their ass for a living get).

 

[Vast LWC]

People are suffering and you want to jack up taxes from the economy. But you have no problem spending their money or their childrens money. And somehow we are the messed up ones.

Spending money on 9/11 responders? Yeah, I'll have to go with the 9/11 responders.

I'm thinking a large percentage of the population agrees with me here.

So much for remembering 9/11 though. Apparently that only applies when they want to use it as an excuse to spend trillions of dollars to invade Iraq.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Keep making excuses for the games dems are playing.
But you noticed I didn't blame just the dems. Both parties have dropped the ball on this issue. I guess you forgot repubs controlled congress 8 years ago.
As for the dems, if they were really concerned about these poeple they would have taken care of this but no this is just another example of polititians being the scum they are.

While the Dems have many games that they play in this manner, as do the Cons, this particular piece of BS is purely a Con game.

Are you seriously trying to point a finger at the Dems for this? Really?

What's up buddy?......Haven't seen ya' in awhile.

What we have is a dem controlled everything these last two years throwing money around like drunken sailors in eleven different directions with no accountability.

It's time we start accounting for every ******* penny......And if this bill needs to be gone through with a fine tooth comb to ensure full accountability, than so be it!

 

[Vast LWC]

Any link to the specifics on the bill, it's funding, and what 'extras' have been put into it?

Or how it's going to be paid for?

Says it right in the article linked. And howdy Jester. I've been away for a while.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Using 911 for political gain really is despicable. This is one of the few things i think most Americans can agree on. Stop using 911 for your own selfish gain. 911 has been milked enough for God's sake. Thousands of shyster Lawyers have gotten incredibly wealthy off that tragedy. The only ones who have really benefited from 911 besides Al Qaeda,are the shyster Lawyers and some Politicians. Enough is enough.

There has been more than enough cash handed out since 911. Time to unplug the 911 ATM Machine. How much more cash should the American Taxpayers be forced to hand out? It has been milked to death. It's over. It happened Ten Years ago for God's sake. The sheister Lawyers have now found every possible angle to cash in on. There are no more angles. Let it go. Money is tight,the American Taxpayer doesn't have any more cash to hand out over 911. I know this sounds harsh & callous but it desperately needs to be said. Unplug the 911 ATM Machine for good. It's over.