Republicans Block Aid to 9/11 Victims - GoFuckYourself.com

TheSenator · 07-30-2010, 07:18 AM

Republicans are really sticking the agenda of "no" to everything the Democrats propose.

Plan to Aid 9/11 Victims Is Rejected in House
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/ny...ga.html?src=mv
======================================

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

WASHINGTON ? House Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic plan to provide billions of dollars for medical treatment to rescue workers and residents of New York City who suffered illnesses from the toxic dust and debris at ground zero.

A majority of the lawmakers in the chamber supported the bill, but the 255-to-159 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin needed under special rules that were used to bring the measure to the floor. In the end, 243 Democrats and 12 Republicans supported the measure; 155 Republicans and 4 Democrats opposed it.

Democrats used rules requiring a wider majority for approval to prevent Republicans from offering amendments on the floor that would embarrass Democrats in an election year.

Republican opponents of the legislation expressed concern over the $7.4 billion cost of the program. But Democrats accused Republicans of being callous and vowed to bring the bill back for another vote in the fall.

Until now, the federal government has been appropriating money on an annual basis to monitor the health of people injured at ground zero and to provide them with medical treatment. But the bill?s supporters said there were problems with the year-to-year approach, including that money for the program was subject to the political whims of Congress and the White House.

The bill would have provided $3.2 billion over the next eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero. New York City would have paid 10 percent of those health costs.

The bill also would have set aside $4.2 billion to reopen the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide compensation for any job and economic losses.

In addition, the bill contained a provision that would have allowed money from the Victim Compensation Fund to be paid out to anyone who receives payment under the pending settlement stemming from lawsuits that 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers filed against the city. At the moment, anyone who receives a settlement from the city could not receive compensation from the fund, according to the bill?s sponsors.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a Democrat and one of the bill?s chief sponsors, expressed disappointment with the outcome, saying that it was a shame that many who opposed the measure ?don?t understand the scope and severity of this health crisis.? But she expressed confidence that the House would pass the bill with a simple majority when Congress returned from its summer recess in September.

Representative Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, who opposed the bill, described it as an ?irresponsible overreach? and asserted that it did not contain sufficient protections to prevent waste and fraud.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, another Democratic sponsor, called the rejection of the measure ?heartless and unpatriotic.?

There are nearly 60,000 people enrolled in a variety of health-monitoring and treatment programs related to the 9/11 attacks, according to the sponsors of the bill. The federal government provides the bulk of the funding for those health programs.

Heading into the vote, Democrats acknowledged it would be difficult to gather enough support to pass the bill under special rules requiring a two-thirds majority.

But Democrats were concerned that a simple majority vote would allow Republicans to propose a controversial amendment that seeks to deny 9/11 health benefits to illegal immigrants. That amendment threatened to fracture Democratic support for the original bill into two camps: moderates who might feel political pressure to deprive illegal immigrants of such benefits and liberals who flatly oppose the Republican amendment.

Still, 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.?

The Demon · 07-30-2010, 07:29 AM

And TheSenator starts amusing this forum really early today.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-30-2010, 07:32 AM

Sounds like both parties are playing politics. Just what this country needs.

Coup · 07-30-2010, 08:29 AM

teabaggers rejoice! another attempt at socialized health care has been defeated!

TheSenator · 07-30-2010, 08:41 AM

Anthony Weiner Rips Apart Republicans on 9/11 Health Bill

BFT3K · 07-30-2010, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Sounds like both parties are playing politics. Just what this country needs.

Yeah, listen to IllTestYourGirls - GFY's most "POLITICALLY NEUTRAL" member!

Agent 488 · 07-30-2010, 08:49 AM

that's just sad. salute the flag when it's time for war, piss on it when it come to helping people.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-30-2010, 08:51 AM

The democrats made the rules, they didnt like the out come. It is called a political stunt.

Quote:

Democrats used rules requiring a wider majority for approval to prevent Republicans from offering amendments on the floor that would embarrass Democrats in an election year.

You should learn to read your own posts.

Brujah · 07-30-2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

The democrats made the rules, they didnt like the out come. It is called a political stunt.

At the end of the day, it still doesn't change the fact that the Republicans blocked it, because they couldn't add their own amendments or tack on some of their own pet projects so it failed. No aid for you 9/11 victims or emergency workers. Suck on it. We get the government we deserve.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-30-2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

At the end of the day, it still doesn't change the fact that the Republicans blocked it, because they couldn't add their own amendments or tack on some of their own pet projects so it failed. No aid for you 9/11 victims or emergency workers. Suck on it. We get the government we deserve.

Well, they could have not enacted the rule and it would have easily passed.

The dems are the ruling party, when are they going to start acting like it? This blaming the reps, with super majority and the white house, is getting old.

Vendzilla · 07-30-2010, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Anthony Weiner Rips Apart Republicans on 9/11 Health Bill

LOL, this is the guy that went after Glenn Beck over his selling of gold, he's a weiner all right

Vendzilla · 07-30-2010, 09:42 AM

Where's all the money coming from that the democrats want to spend?
What happened to the pay and go that the democrats passed?

L-Pink · 07-30-2010, 09:42 AM

Wasn't 9/11 an inside job ......

.

cykoe6 · 07-30-2010, 09:51 AM

It is good to see the Republican standing in the way of the uncontrolled deficit spending of the Democrats. Tough votes like this will be required to fix our fiscal problems. It shows that one party is finally taking the deficit seriously and the other cares only about pork barrel politics and short term political gain.

Penthouse Tony · 07-30-2010, 10:06 AM

Maybe someone can help me understand this. The Republicans in the House can't "block" anything. They don't have enough votes on their own. This bill required a 2/3rds majority to pass because the Democrats supposedly didn't want the Republicans to be able to introduce amendments. If the Republicans don't have a majority then they can't force their amendments either, so why did the Dems worry about them so much? Couldn't they have just done a normal 50% + 1 vote and blocked the amendments that they didn't like? What am I missing here?

The Demon · 07-30-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagi_AFF

Maybe someone can help me understand this. The Republicans in the House can't "block" anything. They don't have enough votes on their own. This bill required a 2/3rds majority to pass because the Democrats supposedly didn't want the Republicans to be able to introduce amendments. If the Republicans don't have a majority then they can't force their amendments either, so why did the Dems worry about them so much? Couldn't they have just done a normal 50% + 1 vote and blocked the amendments that they didn't like? What am I missing here?

Other than the Democrats aren't united and the liberals are making excuses and rationalizations because they are too insecure to accept reality? Nothing really.

Black Ops · 07-30-2010, 10:35 AM

United we stand, divided we fall.

dig420 · 07-30-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagi_AFF

Maybe someone can help me understand this. The Republicans in the House can't "block" anything. They don't have enough votes on their own. This bill required a 2/3rds majority to pass because the Democrats supposedly didn't want the Republicans to be able to introduce amendments. If the Republicans don't have a majority then they can't force their amendments either, so why did the Dems worry about them so much? Couldn't they have just done a normal 50% + 1 vote and blocked the amendments that they didn't like? What am I missing here?

Dems introduce bill to cover ailing 9-11 first responders. Repubs attach amendments abolishing social security or making the Bible required reading in kindergarten, or making elementary students carry rifles to school. Dems institute procedure to block amendments, making the bill require a supermajority to pass. Repubs as an entire bloc vote no, because of course not one single republican is in favor of health care for first responders. Repubs go on Fox crying about how unfair it all is, The Demon, Illtestyourgirls etc come on GFY to talk about how evil the Dems are.

Same ol, same ol.

BFT3K · 07-30-2010, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Dems introduce bill to cover ailing 9-11 first responders. Repubs attach amendments abolishing social security or making the Bible required reading in kindergarten, or making elementary students carry rifles to school. Dems institute procedure to block amendments, making the bill require a supermajority to pass. Repubs as an entire bloc vote no, because of course not one single republican is in favor of health care for first responders. Repubs go on Fox crying about how unfair it all is, The Demon, Illtestyourgirls etc come on GFY to talk about how evil the Dems are.

Same ol, same ol.

EXACTLY!

dig420 · 07-30-2010, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cykoe6

It is good to see the Republican standing in the way of the uncontrolled deficit spending of the Democrats. Tough votes like this will be required to fix our fiscal problems. It shows that one party is finally taking the deficit seriously and the other cares only about pork barrel politics and short term political gain.

One party wants to help out the disadvantaged, give you rational health care and is nearly universally the party that educated people belong to. The other party wants to give your money to Bank of America and BP, doesn't believe in evolution and is nearly universally made up of mouth-breathing morons, bigots and super-christians.

Which party do you belong to?

cambaby · 07-30-2010, 11:56 AM

The Democrats could have passed this bill, they chose not to.

Penthouse Tony · 07-30-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Dems introduce bill to cover ailing 9-11 first responders. Repubs attach amendments abolishing social security or making the Bible required reading in kindergarten, or making elementary students carry rifles to school. Dems institute procedure to block amendments, making the bill require a supermajority to pass. Repubs as an entire bloc vote no, because of course not one single republican is in favor of health care for first responders. Repubs go on Fox crying about how unfair it all is, The Demon, Illtestyourgirls etc come on GFY to talk about how evil the Dems are.

Same ol, same ol.

Don't the Repubs need a majority to get their amendments added?

The Demon · 07-30-2010, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Dems introduce bill to cover ailing 9-11 first responders. Repubs attach amendments abolishing social security or making the Bible required reading in kindergarten, or making elementary students carry rifles to school. Dems institute procedure to block amendments, making the bill require a supermajority to pass. Repubs as an entire bloc vote no, because of course not one single republican is in favor of health care for first responders. Repubs go on Fox crying about how unfair it all is, The Demon, Illtestyourgirls etc come on GFY to talk about how evil the Dems are.

Same ol, same ol.

Hysterical considering the majority of the political threads on this forum are started by liberals who need to bitch about something. But thanks for once again proving that liberals don't live in reality

The Demon · 07-30-2010, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

One party wants to help out the disadvantaged, give you rational health care and is nearly universally the party that educated people belong to. The other party wants to give your money to Bank of America and BP, doesn't believe in evolution and is nearly universally made up of mouth-breathing morons, bigots and super-christians.

Which party do you belong to?

One of the most hilariously simplistic views of political parties I've ever read. Do you worship MSNBC or something? I know you're an idiot but are you also that naive?

baddog · 07-30-2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Dems introduce bill to cover ailing 9-11 first responders. Repubs attach amendments abolishing social security or making the Bible required reading in kindergarten, or making elementary students carry rifles to school. Dems institute procedure to block amendments, making the bill require a supermajority to pass.

What amendments did they really attach?

The Demon · 07-30-2010, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

What amendments did they really attach?

Here's where the facts don't actually exist. Don't expect a liberal on GFY to provide any.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-30-2010, 12:16 PM

Ok great getting them health care... awesome... but why are you all not worried about their tax rates going up 50% and them taking home less in their paychecks every week?

TheSenator · 07-30-2010, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Dems introduce bill to cover ailing 9-11 first responders. Repubs attach amendments abolishing social security or making the Bible required reading in kindergarten, or making elementary students carry rifles to school. Dems institute procedure to block amendments, making the bill require a supermajority to pass. Repubs as an entire bloc vote no, because of course not one single republican is in favor of health care for first responders. Repubs go on Fox crying about how unfair it all is, The Demon, Illtestyourgirls etc come on GFY to talk about how evil the Dems are.

Same ol, same ol.

On point

baddog · 07-30-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

On point

Really? What amendments did they really attach?

TheSenator · 07-30-2010, 12:23 PM

Republicans also blocked a small business jobs bill.

The Demon · 07-30-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Really? What amendments did they really attach?

Haha, you're asking someone dumber than digg to provide facts? HAHA that's funny bro.

baddog · 07-30-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Haha, you're asking someone dumber than digg to provide facts? HAHA that's funny bro.

Dig isn't dumb, just idealistic. TheSenator is a blithering idiot.

The Demon · 07-30-2010, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Dig isn't dumb, just idealistic. TheSenator is a blithering idiot.

I admire your optimism regarding digg's intelligence.

BFT3K · 07-30-2010, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Really? What amendments did they really attach?

It never got that far, but you would have to be an idiot to think partisan amendments would not have been added.

At the heart of the debate was a procedural maneuver made by Democrats to suspend the rules before consideration of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The move allowed leadership to block potential GOP amendments to the measure (there was worry that Republicans would attach something overtly partisan in hopes that it could pass on the otherwise widely-popular measure). It also meant that the party needed a two-thirds majority vote.

In the end almost all republicans voted against, while most dems voted for it.

If you or a loved one is/was adversely effected by HELPING after a disaster, and you cannot be compensated for your sacrifice, YOU decide which side to fucking blame!

Penthouse Tony · 07-30-2010, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Republicans also blocked a small business jobs bill.

how can they do that?

BFT3K · 07-30-2010, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Republicans also blocked a small business jobs bill.

Exactly! A bill that would have SPECIFICALLY helped small businesses!

The right is so full of crybaby sore losers it is incomprehensible!

If you think Obama will be voted out, by a group of retards that now vote against their own previous proposals, JUST to make the left look bad - then you are fucking delusional!

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

GOP Filibusters Small Business Bill After Criticizing Dems For Delay

For several days now, Senate Republicans have ridiculed their Democratic counterparts for prioritizing campaign finance legislation over a bill that would benefit small businesses, arguing that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was putting electoral advantages over jobs for everyday people.

Story continues here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_663791.html

The Demon · 07-30-2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Exactly! A bill that would have SPECIFICALLY helped small businesses!

The right is so full of crybaby sore losers it is incomprehensible!

If you think Obama will be voted out, by a group of retards that now vote against their own previous proposals, JUST to make the left look bad - then you are fucking delusional!

baddog · 07-30-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

It never got that far, but you would have to be an idiot to think partisan amendments would not have been added.

You would have to be an idiot.

BFT3K · 07-30-2010, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

You would have to be an idiot.

So we are in agreement then... cool.

TheSenator · 07-30-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Really? What amendments did they really attach?

They didn't you moron! That is the reason the Democrats choose this procedure.

They would pay the bill by closing a tax loophole of corporations incorporating in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S.

R u against giving health care to 9/11 first responders?

The Demon · 07-30-2010, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

They didn't you moron! That is the reason the Democrats choose this procedure.

They would pay the bill by closing a tax loophole of corporations incorporating in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S.

R u against giving health care to first responders?

Wow, you really are a blabbering idiot.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-30-2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

R u against giving health care to 9/11 first responders?

No I am not.

Are you for raising their taxes by up to 50%?

Taxing their death?

PenisFace · 07-30-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Wow, you really are a blabbering idiot.

You never have any counter arguments, all you ever do is insult people and complain about "liberals". You are the worst kind of troll.

TheSenator · 07-30-2010, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenisFace

You never have any counter arguments, all you ever do is insult people and complain about "liberals". You are the worst kind of troll.

Its surprising the amount of denial that goes on.

I pretty shocked that Baddog is against giving the 9/11 heros health care.

kane · 07-30-2010, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagi_AFF

Don't the Repubs need a majority to get their amendments added?

Technically yes, however, one party often adds things to a bill just for political gain knowing it won't pass. For example, several years ago there was some kind of spending bill that was up. It was filled with pork and junk spending. One of the provisions added to it was that it would supply some money for more bullet proof vests for soldiers. John Kerry voted against it. He voted against it because he thought it was a bad bill. The amendment for more body armor was just one of hundreds of pork amendments in the bill.

So then when Kerry is running for president the republicans roll out the ads talking about how he voted against funding for body armor for our troops. So technically it was correct, but it was not really all that accurate. There have been other similar bills. There was another one that the democrats put up that had a ton of pork spending in it and one amendment for more ammo for the troops. It got voted down and the democrats went on the offensive saying that republicans are blocking funding for ammo for our troops.

So the democrats wanted this procedure so that there could be none of these last minute amendments added to the bill that would force them to vote against them and make them look bad.

Vendzilla · 07-30-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Its surprising the amount of denial that goes on.

I pretty shocked that Baddog is against giving the 9/11 heros health care.

They worked for the city right, in New York? You don't think they have healthcare?

And the guy that Weiner is yelling at the top of his lungs at ( Peter King), he voted yes, kinda puts thing in prespective don't it

IllTestYourGirls · 07-30-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

No I am not.

Are you for raising their taxes by up to 50%?

Taxing their death?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Its surprising the amount of denial that goes on.

I pretty shocked that Baddog is against giving the 9/11 heros health care.

I am shocked that the dems want to raise their taxes 50% and tax their widows.

poncabare · 07-30-2010, 06:18 PM

"They would pay the bill by closing a tax loophole of corporations incorporating in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S. "

Como?

TheSenator · 07-30-2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

They worked for the city right, in New York? You don't think they have healthcare?

And the guy that Weiner is yelling at the top of his lungs at ( Peter King), he voted yes, kinda puts thing in prespective don't it

Not all NYC emergency services are covered by health care. A big chunk were volunteer EMS, fire fighters and various other volunteers.

Some even gave up their lives in saving others immediately after the first air plane slammed into the Twin Towers.

tony286 · 07-30-2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

I am shocked that the dems want to raise their taxes 50% and tax their widows.

please post a real news source for that?

07-30-2010, 07:18 AM	#1
TheSenator Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 13,331	Republicans Block Aid to 9/11 Victims Republicans are really sticking the agenda of "no" to everything the Democrats propose. Plan to Aid 9/11 Victims Is Rejected in House http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/ny...ga.html?src=mv ====================================== By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ WASHINGTON ? House Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic plan to provide billions of dollars for medical treatment to rescue workers and residents of New York City who suffered illnesses from the toxic dust and debris at ground zero. A majority of the lawmakers in the chamber supported the bill, but the 255-to-159 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin needed under special rules that were used to bring the measure to the floor. In the end, 243 Democrats and 12 Republicans supported the measure; 155 Republicans and 4 Democrats opposed it. Democrats used rules requiring a wider majority for approval to prevent Republicans from offering amendments on the floor that would embarrass Democrats in an election year. Republican opponents of the legislation expressed concern over the $7.4 billion cost of the program. But Democrats accused Republicans of being callous and vowed to bring the bill back for another vote in the fall. Until now, the federal government has been appropriating money on an annual basis to monitor the health of people injured at ground zero and to provide them with medical treatment. But the bill?s supporters said there were problems with the year-to-year approach, including that money for the program was subject to the political whims of Congress and the White House. The bill would have provided $3.2 billion over the next eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero. New York City would have paid 10 percent of those health costs. The bill also would have set aside $4.2 billion to reopen the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide compensation for any job and economic losses. In addition, the bill contained a provision that would have allowed money from the Victim Compensation Fund to be paid out to anyone who receives payment under the pending settlement stemming from lawsuits that 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers filed against the city. At the moment, anyone who receives a settlement from the city could not receive compensation from the fund, according to the bill?s sponsors. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a Democrat and one of the bill?s chief sponsors, expressed disappointment with the outcome, saying that it was a shame that many who opposed the measure ?don?t understand the scope and severity of this health crisis.? But she expressed confidence that the House would pass the bill with a simple majority when Congress returned from its summer recess in September. Representative Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, who opposed the bill, described it as an ?irresponsible overreach? and asserted that it did not contain sufficient protections to prevent waste and fraud. Representative Jerrold Nadler, another Democratic sponsor, called the rejection of the measure ?heartless and unpatriotic.? There are nearly 60,000 people enrolled in a variety of health-monitoring and treatment programs related to the 9/11 attacks, according to the sponsors of the bill. The federal government provides the bulk of the funding for those health programs. Heading into the vote, Democrats acknowledged it would be difficult to gather enough support to pass the bill under special rules requiring a two-thirds majority. But Democrats were concerned that a simple majority vote would allow Republicans to propose a controversial amendment that seeks to deny 9/11 health benefits to illegal immigrants. That amendment threatened to fracture Democratic support for the original bill into two camps: moderates who might feel political pressure to deprive illegal immigrants of such benefits and liberals who flatly oppose the Republican amendment. Still, 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.? __________________ ISeekGirls.com since 2005

07-30-2010, 07:29 AM	#2
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	And TheSenator starts amusing this forum really early today. __________________ Greed is Good

07-30-2010, 07:32 AM	#3
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	Sounds like both parties are playing politics. Just what this country needs. __________________

07-30-2010, 08:41 AM	#5
TheSenator Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 13,331	Anthony Weiner Rips Apart Republicans on 9/11 Health Bill __________________ ISeekGirls.com since 2005

07-30-2010, 09:42 AM	#12
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,201	Where's all the money coming from that the democrats want to spend? What happened to the pay and go that the democrats passed? __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

07-30-2010, 08:29 AM	#4
Coup 🚨 PBBC International 🚨 Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: /👁\ Posts: 9,932	teabaggers rejoice! another attempt at socialized health care has been defeated!

07-30-2010, 08:49 AM	#7
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	that's just sad. salute the flag when it's time for war, piss on it when it come to helping people.

07-30-2010, 09:42 AM	#13
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,152	Wasn't 9/11 an inside job ...... .

07-30-2010, 09:51 AM	#14
cykoe6 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vegas Posts: 4,499	It is good to see the Republican standing in the way of the uncontrolled deficit spending of the Democrats. Tough votes like this will be required to fix our fiscal problems. It shows that one party is finally taking the deficit seriously and the other cares only about pork barrel politics and short term political gain. __________________ бабки, шлюхи, сила

07-30-2010, 10:06 AM	#15
Penthouse Tony Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 5,835	Maybe someone can help me understand this. The Republicans in the House can't "block" anything. They don't have enough votes on their own. This bill required a 2/3rds majority to pass because the Democrats supposedly didn't want the Republicans to be able to introduce amendments. If the Republicans don't have a majority then they can't force their amendments either, so why did the Dems worry about them so much? Couldn't they have just done a normal 50% + 1 vote and blocked the amendments that they didn't like? What am I missing here? __________________ aamos AT FFN dot com Penthouse.com Business Development ICQ: 49090846 \| Yahoo IM: ff_aamos

07-30-2010, 10:35 AM	#17
Black Ops Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 292	United we stand, divided we fall. __________________ If you can read this sig, you're already dead.

07-30-2010, 11:56 AM	#21
cambaby So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: CR Posts: 3,141	The Democrats could have passed this bill, they chose not to.

07-30-2010, 12:16 PM	#27
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	Ok great getting them health care... awesome... but why are you all not worried about their tax rates going up 50% and them taking home less in their paychecks every week? __________________

07-30-2010, 12:23 PM	#30
TheSenator Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 13,331	Republicans also blocked a small business jobs bill. __________________ ISeekGirls.com since 2005

07-30-2010, 06:18 PM	#48
poncabare Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: carmel Posts: 2,553	"They would pay the bill by closing a tax loophole of corporations incorporating in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S. " Como?