Republicans: "Ground Zero is sacred, the emergency workers are not"

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#1
Washington (CNN) -- A bill to provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks won approval Wednesday from the U.S. House.

The measure passed on a mostly partisan 268-160 vote. The Senate has yet to take up the issue.

President Barack Obama, who supported the measure, hailed its passage.
"It is a critical step for those who continue to bear the physical scars of those attacks," he said in a statement. "I applaud the House for its support of this bill and for standing up on behalf of these heroes, who served our country in its time of greatest need. I look forward to Congress completing consideration of this legislation so I can sign it into law."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, called the passage a "long overdue victory."

"To the living heroes and heroines of 9/11, we have very good news," she said. "Help is on the way. We passed your bill in the House of Representatives."

Fellow New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler said he was "extremely emotional" over the win.

"We won a major victory today, and I am overjoyed," he said. "Today, we put aside a little politics and we did a little right and a little good."

Republicans had complained the $7.4 billion price tag was too high, while Democrats said the government had an obligation to help the first responders to the deadliest terrorism attack in U.S. history. But New York Republican Rep. Peter King was a strong backer of the measure and stood by Maloney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as they celebrated the House win.

"What we did was what we had to do," King said, addressing the dozens of first responders who joined the representatives around the podium. "What you did was what you volunteered to do."

"It took a long time, and I'm sorry for that," he said, adding "you can finally get justice after all these years."

Republicans blocked the bill in July after Democrats suspended the rules to stop the minority party from adding unrelated amendments. The move also meant the bill would require a two-thirds majority to pass, and Republicans used it to their advantage, holding the bill to 255 yes votes -- far fewer than the 291 it needed to pass, though far more than it ordinarily would have needed.

Maloney and the other New Yorkers have been working since for a majority vote.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health Bill -- named after a deceased New York Police Department detective -- seeks to provide free medical coverage for responders and survivors who were exposed to toxins after the attacks.
A coroner linked Zadroga's death in January 2006 to respiratory failure caused by his work in the toxic plume at ground zero. Zadroga was 34.
CNN.com

So the whole summer is spent bitching and crying about a mosque several blocks away 'tainting' the area or being a victory for terrorists . . . and then you vote against a bill that would help the people you love putting on your promotional materials, the emergency response workers? To me, the problem is this: for the democrats, no price is too high and for republicans, no price is too low. But of all the things to give money to, why not support those who gave aid during the events of 9/11?

Thoughts?
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#2
I especially agree with your last sentence, of all the things to give money to, why not support those who gave aid on 9/11. This bill is long overdue. I hope the Senate passes this quickly and aid goes to those who need it ASAP.
 

icegoat63

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#3
I was unable to find the original article on CNN.com

But yeah, I find it a little odd that the standard Right Wing chant is "I support our Soldiers abroad". Then compared to the voting action here... it doesn't make sense that our Closest heroes at home get tossed to the side.

Personally... I dont consider Ground Zero Sacred at all. In my opinion, considering it Sacred only immortalizes the Radical actions that took the towers down. Instead, I'd much rather see Ground Zero cleaned up, excavated, and Rebuilt on asap.

If we're gonna dump money into Ground Zero as some sort of "Point of interest" now... I'd much rather just see the money dumped into Demo and Construction Contractors to get something Rebuilt. As a Symbol to show those who supported the Radical Action... that it will take more than two buildings being knocked down to Rattle this Whole Nation.

I'm not saying 9/11 wasn't serious...I realize its the Largest Death toll ever recorded from a Terrorist Attack. But I do believe that alot of the reverence towards the site itself is unnecessary. How many other nations have sustained Terrorist Actions that shook their Nation? Do they Dwell over the sites too? Or do they Rebuild and carry on with life as usual?

Just feels like to me that we went about it wrong. Started off right IMO... then during Bush's 2nd Term we just lost the focus and fell off what I felt was the right track.

But yeah I'm rambling... back to the OP;

I'm glad that the Bill Passed. This is one of those Situations where its more than obvious that these Damn Politicians are out of Sync with their Constituencies.

Seriously though... I would bet my life savings on it that if we were to take a literal Poll with the hypothetical situation saying "I've got 1 billion Dollars that HAS to go to either;

A) Building a Ground Zero Memorial that the State of New York can Tax you to go stand next to and take a picture With or...
B) Divide it up amongst the Emergency Service Men and Women that Risked Life and Limb to save other lives and control the situation...

Where do you want it to go?"

We would have a Super Majority and then Some all in favor of B.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#4
Just a question: do any of you know what is in the "The James Zadroga 9/11 Health Bill"? What are its merits? What are its drawbacks, if any? Could there be any reasonable justification to vote against it? I'm a little skeptical that the name of any bill actually reflects what is in a bill or what it will or will not accomplish.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#6
I'm well aware of that site and that the bill is there. My question is did you, CO, or Goat actually read what is in the bill, even just the summary, or are you just supporting the idea based upon a news story about it?
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#7
SS, if you're going to be ridiculing us for not knowing each word in the bill, why haven't you read it all yourself? I doubt you could find even a poltician who has read it in its entirety and I even googled some republican opinions on it and I've found nothing substantial. My assumption is that if there was something significant in the bill, the republicans would be screaming about it (like they usually do).
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#8
I'm not ridiculing anyone, it was a simple question (one that you have not answered). I did read the summary before I made my initial post, have you yet? I think there are some things worth debate, but I'm not going to get into it with those who will not take the time to find out for themselves. We can talk about news articles until we're blue in the face, but that is pointless!
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#9
I'm not ridiculing anyone, it was a simple question (one that you have not answered). I did read the summary before I made my initial post, have you yet? I think there are some things worth debate, but I'm not going to get into it with those who will not take the time to find out for themselves. We can talk about news articles until we're blue in the face, but that is pointless!
I'm calling bullshit :D

If you had read anything, you'd be quoting it already and bringing up these debatable points you claim to have. You and I both know that thinking someone didn't know something you did is far from a reason you'd use for not responding. All I've read is the summary as well and like I said I googled for some republican dissent and I've found no substantial reasoning outside of the standard right wing fare ("no handouts!").
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#10
Better think again!

So you are aware it covers more than just responders or that there is plenty of built in bureaucracy right?

So you are aware that anyone that may (or may not) have been in the area has a potential claim for mental illness? How can it be proven where one was at the time of the incident?

Maybe you should read it before you respond, I'm going to bed!